Author Topic: Our 9th & 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World Order!  (Read 114167 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Guest
But, the States have given up some power to their creation, the Federal Government, and that power cannot be added unto nor taken away without a Constitutional Amendment.  A State, as long as it continues within this agreement, does NOT have the power individually, contrary to what is stated in a few of the sovereignty resolutions, to either remove a power from its delegated position in the Federal Government, or to assume such power to itself.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not understand where you get the idea that the States have the power to delete or to delegate more powers to the Federal Government by any form other than a Constitutional Convention.  That, to the extent of my knowledge, is the only way for the States themselves, to amend any powers delegated to the Fed.  The other way is for Congress to propose amendments, or even an entirely new Constitution, and that the States ratify them.

I completely agree with you that many of the dealings within the Federal Government are currently unconstitutional, and that the States collectively have the right to call these acts out, and to nullify them, but I do not believe that the States have any authority to direct the Federal Government in any of its legitimately constitutional actions such as the powers defined in Article 1, Section 8, or any where else in the Constitution of the United States, because they gave up these powers individually in order for the entire country to posess them collectively.

You said that the current government is not legitimately and physically the actual government created by the Constitution?  In what way do you mean this?  Are you saying this with regards to the District of Columbia itself and its jurisdiction, or the actual people who are running it?

The states did not give up the powers enumerated in article I section 8. These powers are merely communicated from the several states, in exchange for value of the equal worth from the central agent. You don't give up your rights to a lawyer when he is hired to represent you, same with the relationship of the federal government and the States... Article IV is an example of some of the exchange goods the States are to receive from the federal agent, with article IV section 4 being particularly noteworthy.

As I've pointed out in one of my earlier "lengthy" posts, several of the states resolutions will not pass because they are not abiding by the rules of lawful service. I'm sure you can surmise what that means, and most state legislators understand what it means as well. In that post I also spelled out the proper procedure.

Your comment:
"Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not understand where you get the idea that the states have the power to delete or to delegate more powers to the federal government by any form other than a constitutional convention."

This is a curious statement, it presupposes that the state is deleting power granted by the Constitution, or attempting to delegate powers to the federal government that are not enumerated therein. This is not the case in this movement at all. The 10th Amendment Resolution portends housecleaning only with the broom of Article I Section 8 in hand. Since the powers delegated by the constitutional agreement between the state's are still state powers that have been ceded by provisions in the agreement between the states, to a 3rd party, to the federal agent, we the states have absolute control of that agent and desire that the agent, the federal government, cease the process of voting itself powers that are not specifically within their defined powers to hold.

Much the same way that power of attorney is granted by you to your legal agent. The states by the 10th amendment, still have the power to access and resend, through the individual 10th amendment effort of each state throughout the 50 states, together, without the communication of a convention, but from the laws of necessity, as spelled out in the Declaratory Enabling Act that gave rise to the Constitution namely the Declaration of Independence.  

This knowledge is quite well known among the powerful in Washington DC, who remain silent about it and hedge every bet against it... this is why, when the 10th amendment state sovereignty movement was about to reach a crescendo in the mid-90s, the folks pushing it, those Constitutional patriots, had to be demonized and stopped. The Oklahoma City bombing was engineered precisely by the feds, to take care of this problem.

The reason for the aforementioned housecleaning is pretty obvious, and is apparent to a majority of the states presently. The federal government has been giving unto itself, power at the expense of the states and the people of the states, which it has no constitutional power to grant itself. It is doing so only by deconstruction of word, grammar, and definition, and inventing against the Constitution webs of convolved meaning, beyond the bounds of what an intelligent man can tolerate.

Only the states, and their people have the power, through constitutional process, which includes the 10th amendment process, to rein in an agent who is bent upon the absolute destruction of the principals ( the States), by misuse of the agreement that created it.

So you're above quoted statement seems to me, a bit of a non sequitur given the discussion thus far, at least as far as I have advanced it. I see in it, however, what seems as an attempt at wrenching meanings from my words that are not there at all.

A super majority of the 50 states, by individual initiative, has the power under the 10th amendment to accomplish without convention the opening up of the entire amended law after the date of ratification December 15, 1791, and to reiterate, certainly without a convention.  The only reason for a convention, would be to open the Ratified in Convention 1791 Constitution to change... and that, is what we, this effort, this movement, absolutely, emphatically, and well beyond a shadow of a doubt, DO NOT WANT! NOR WILL WE ACCEPT!!

I will once again refer you to Thomas Jefferson:

''...on every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the Debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one
in which it was passed.''
~Thomas Jefferson

This is a very important quote that has been ignored by virtually all interpreters of the Constitution, since John Jay was the Chief Justice of the court. Also, as we pull away in time from the date of the framing of this monumental work, more and more people within government, know less and less about the foundation documents, and have mistakenly come to see the federal government as the center of power. This is of course wrong.

It is also the reason why the states must, every 200 years or so clean up the complacent trash that has been gathering around the agreement which they all so honorably signed. This may include firing the attorney and hiring a new one. But the agreement between the states, the Organic Constitution, which is guarded at its conclusion by the 10th amendment of that Constitution and Bill of Rights, will remain. All else is within the 9th and 10th amendment state powers to dissolve or change.

As to the last part of your post dealing with our current rogue federal government operating every minute outside of the Constitution, because of its corporate structure and its sneaky way of utilizing the power of the Constitution without having to abide by the Constitution, I suggest that you read closely the following linked material, then we can discuss it.

Much was weeded through at this link, before we could get to the level in the discussion that leads to the "aha eureka" phenomenon of understanding how the federal slight of hand was accomplished. Here is the link...

This will help... but it does get rather esoteric in the grasping department, though it is pretty concrete in the factual. It is quite like looking at one of those early holograms that looked like a bunch of dots and squiggles in pastel colors on the paper that you held in the sunlight to see. It was impossible to see at first, until that one time, when it popped out at you... then you never had a problem being able to see it from then on.


"A government that is large enough to supply everything
you need is large enough to take everything you have."

~Thomas Jefferson


  • Guest
Our friend Michael G. has ferreted out this copy of the paper trail of the 1995 MAINE 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, from it's introduction to it's adoption on April 11, 1995. Thanks Michael.

Click on the thumbnail images below to read the document full size... Unfortunately, the first 8 images of these documents were lost in a major server crash in June of '11... if anyone out there has them copied, let me know at [email protected]. ~JT)


"...the State of Colorado hereby claims sovereignty, under the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, over all powers
not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by
the United States Constitution."
~From HJR-94-1035, The First
10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution, 1994

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
Re: Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World Order!
« Reply #42 on: September 19, 2010, 11:54:22 am »
Quote from: matt butler
(posted on 9/13/10)

matt butler Says:
September 13th, 2010 at 12:15 am

I read this case and have also studied it while in law school and it does not do all the things you imply Mr. Coyote. It stands for the very limited constitutional law that the federal government cannot pass laws pressing State officers and employees into service of the federal government. In the case this meant it was unconstitutional to require county sheriffs to participate in brady background checks on guns. If the feds wanted such checks they had to administer them.


It seems you would have us believe that if the feds had sent a small force of agents into each county of every state to administer and enforce the provisions of the Brady Act, that would have been okay. An invasion of agents to enforce federal law, in violation of several constitutional provisions as well as the very spirit of the Declaration of Independence... hmm, that's an interesting take on it.

You fail to mention however that several of the questioned Brady provisions were rendered "obsolete" by Insta-Check, long before the Petition was ever heard by the high court. Therefore it would seem that something more fundamental was driving this appeal as well.

If you take the time to read the 11,400 word Court Opinion by Justice Scalia, and the Concurring Opinions of Justices O'Conner and Thomas, you come away with the understanding that much more is being ruled on here than a few Brady provisions or the idea of federal commandeering of County Sheriffs and other state officials. 

This ruling upholds not only the state's 10th Amendment power and sovereignty, it reinforces the 9th Amendment standing of the people as the very source of state power. This is a masterwork by Scalia, and should be studied a lot deeper than you were instructed to do in law school.

My assertion that much more was on the plate when the Appeal was initiated, is not just a feeling, you must know that I was involved in the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty movement from the beginning at it's birthplace in the Colorado State Capitol.  I am well aware of what Sheriff Mack was up to in 1994/95... hands on.

Here is a snippet from Scalia's Court Opinion that gets to the essentials of the ruling on Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

  "Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty," The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison). This is reflected throughout the Constitution's text, Lane County v. Oregon,  7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869); Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869), including (to mention only a few examples) the prohibition on any involuntary reduction or combination of a State's territory, Art. IV, §3; the Judicial Power Clause, Art. III, §2, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, §2, which speak of the "Citizens" of the States; the amendment provision, Article V, which requires the votes of three fourths of the States to amend the Constitution; and the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, §4, which "presupposes the continued existence of the states and . . . those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights," Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 414-415 (1938). Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, §8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment's assertion that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

  The Framers' experience under the Articles of Confederation had persuaded them that using the States as the instruments of federal governance was both ineffectual and provocative of federal state conflict. See The Federalist No. 15. Preservation of the States as independent political entities being the price of union, and "[t]he practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies" having been, in Madison's words, "exploded on all hands," 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 9 (M. Farrand ed. 1911), the Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people--who were, in Hamilton's words, "the only proper objects of government," The Federalist No. 15, at 109. We have set forth the historical record in more detail elsewhere, see New York v. United States, 505 U. S., at 161-166, and need not repeat it here."

JT Coyoté

"An Unconstitutional Act is not a law;
it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
it affords no protection; it creates no office;                                                   
it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative
as though it had never been passed."

--U.S. Supreme Court,
Norton V. Shelby County
118 U.S. 425, 442

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
We The People must reclaim our Constitution.

Whether we care to admit it or not, it is well past time for the people to break their attachment to the left/right, Republican/Democrat, liberal/conservative, false political paradigms.  "The People must reclaim our Constitution," expounded State Senator Charlie Duke in his speech before the crowd at the Colorado State Republican Convention in June of 1996.  Charlie knew all to well the face of the peoples enemy. He also knew the only way to peacefully defeat the nation usurping corporate bankers, was to apprise the people of the power of the Constitution; that they should arm themselves with it, and know how to use it.

Yes, the solution is the Constitution with it's 9th Amendment protected Rights -- each individual holds these Rights as Inalienable by birth, together we bring them into action through the 10th Amendment power of each State.  Lawful constitutional clout, aimed directly at the titles of nobility fondling globalist power brokers, the haters of individual liberty.  Thomas Jefferson hit the nail on the head, with the following unambiguous words:

"I have sworn upon the altar of almighty God,
eternal hostility against every form of tyranny
over the mind of man."

We must say NO to the Corporate Statists and their fraudulent parties. NO to their coerced tax legislation funded Wall Street banks, and their Goebbels-esque main stream media propaganda machine which promotes this agenda. They march together lockstep, connected at the hip, they're hell-bent on turning the United States into a sub-state, North American Union, third world multi-cultural fiefdom, ripe for culling.  What's left will be merged into the elite's global tyranny envisaged by F.A. Hayek in his 1944 book The Road to Serfdom. Our only hope is if We the people of each state, pull together reclaiming the Constitutional United States. This will terminate our slide into neo-feudalism. It will mean arousing folks into frightful awareness and educating as many as we can.  Again Jefferson foresaw our plight:

"Fear can only prevail when victims
are ignorant of the facts."

Unfortunately, we have been long-term hoodwinked by the global corporate bankers by their preferred method of political divide and conquer -- corporate commandeering of the Party system.  Formally created in the French Parliament in the 1700s, the party system cleaved government administration along philosophical lines. By splitting policies and programs into parties, this eventually became that particular party's niche. Because there is no separation of corporation and state, the lions share of funding for both political parties today is from corporate banking coffers.  

In other words, they completely control the two major political parties.  Together, we must unite in our Inalienable power to halt this incremental dismantling of the ideas of the Founders even of the Constitution itself.  As Reform Candidate Pat Buchanan stated in his stump speeches during the 2000 presidential campaign:

"The Democrats and the Republicans are the two
wings of the same bird of prey, which is feasting
upon the Constitution and the American people."

From the beginning, George Washington saw the destructive liabilities of party factioning. Though he is characterized today as a federalist, his pro-individual and state sovereignty stand is well publicized.  In his July 6th, 1796 letter to Thomas Jefferson, Washington recollected:

"I was no party man myself, and the first
wish of my heart was, if parties did exist,
to reconcile them."

So here we are, dealing with the same imperial interests we thought were expelled from our shores 229 years ago. The same elitist machine that America supposedly defeated in our War for Independence.   Unfortunately the enemy just went underground to wage a covert war of intrigue, infiltration, and subterfuge instead.  Founding Father and signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush characterized it this way:

"The American war is over; but this is far from being the case
with the American revolution. On the contrary, nothing but
the first act of the drama is closed."

This "Cold banking War" turned hot for the first time in the War of 1812. Pressed service on the high seas and piracy by the British was touted publicly as the reason. More likely, it was because of Congress and Madison's decision not to recharter the British owned First Bank of the United States. Madison summed up his reasons for not renewing the charter, this way:

"History records that the money changers have used every
form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible
to maintain their control over governments by controlling
money and its issuance."

Thomas Jefferson reiterates Madison, beginning with a hope, then a fear, and finally a forewarning:

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of
our moneyed corporations, which dare already to
challenge our government to a trial of strength,
and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

-- To George Logan, (Nov. 1816)

The bank mania is raising up a moneyed aristocracy in
our country which has already set the government at
defiance, and although forced at length to yield a little
on this first essay of their strength their principles are
un yielded and unyielding. These have taken deep root
in the hearts of that class from which our legislators are
drawn, and the sop to Cerberus from fable has become
history. Their principles lay hold of the good, their pelf
of the bad, and thus those whom the Constitution had
placed as guards to its portals, are sophisticated or
suborned from their duties."
-- To Dr. J.B. Stuart, (1817)

This long Cold War for conquest of America re-established itself in the form of the Second  Bank of the U.S. being chartered in 1816. This came as a result of political pressure over the war debt owed European bankers who helped finance the war of 1812. Madison understood this type of covert economic war. He knew it was planned long before the ink was dry on Cornwallis' signature of surrender to Washington at Yorktown.

In 1836, the fiat debt fraud created by these corporate banksters, was already sucking the life out of the nations economy.  Andrew Jackson, also understanding the banker's scheme, drove a stake so deep in the heart of the Second Bank of the U.S. beast, it took 77 years before the private banking monster was sufficiently out of our national memory, for the creature to rise once again.  It was brought back to life in 1913 as the Federal Reserve Bank. Jackson was an ardent proponent of a strong 10th Amendment in the states to check federal power, including European banking interests with state branch banking on their mind.  To get around Jackson's 1836 "I Killed the Bank," federal prohibition, the corporate bankers went after the 10th Amendment in a very sneaky way which Jackson foresaw. On this subject he had this to say:

"Unless you become more watchful in your states
and check the spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive
privileges you will in the end find that... the control
over your dearest interests has passed into the hands
of these corporations."

The bankers knew if they could force division between the agrarian South and the industrial North provoking a war and then loaning funds to both sides they could use popular opinion against the 10th Amendment. They began fanning the flames, manipulating the rhetoric of slavery.   Funded by the corporate European banking elite, paid provocateurs initiated hyperbole in the press, started riots in the streets, steered well meaning groups into acts of violence, which successfully silenced all meaningful state and congressional debate to resolve the slavery issue. Banker money provocateured the first shots at Fort Sumter, and the Civil War erupted.

Suffice it to say, this spelled the beginning of the end of our national sovereignty by 1871. The reverberations of our relative collective ignorance of the facts surrounding and initiating the Civil War and the Carpetbaggers joke called "Reconstruction," are amplified in the mistakes we are making today. In the following quote, Lincoln enunciates what we should all know -- he states clearly what we should be loudly demanding. He voices what we must remind our representatives and judges of incessantly:

"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."

It is up to us to make necessary changes using our Right-filled responsibility under the inspired methods laid out in our Constitution. Once folks see the incremental craftiness of this globalist confiscation of our birthright, when it is finally realized and understood, it impacts so deeply, it is as if they had always known it -- it is that clear.  The States and WE the people must unite around our mutual Constitutional contract -- only then can we honestly begin to halt and reverse this slow multi-generational takeover.



“The Founders set up the 1st Amendment so religion could never become
a divisive tool of faction to destroy the People’s government. If only they
could have foreseen how powerful corporations would accomplish the
same terrible deed -- to manipulate, direct, and control government to the
detriment of the people and the destruction of Liberty.

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
Re: Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World Order!
« Reply #44 on: September 07, 2013, 05:51:08 pm »
We have the Right of RECALL of any or ALL government office holders... regardless of any repugnant intervention by "ruling, statute, regulation, or so-called law" to the contrary.

Pg 2: What needs to be done!


(From the third paragraph of page 2, of the above link. ~JT)

As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor
authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators,Representatives,
or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever
been recalled in the history of the United States. The recall of Members was
considered during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787,
but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the states
for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an
express understanding of the framers and ratifiers that no right or power to
recall a Senator or Representative in Congress exists under the Constitution.


The 1787 Constitution is NOT the Unanimously Recognized and Ratified Constitution. The use of the 1787 Constitution as the foundation and selective interpretation for law by the Court, is one of the best hidden scams the globalists have used against us since the civil war. The Unanimously Recognized and Ratified Constitution and Bill of Rights of December 15, 1791, IS the True Organic Law for the united States of America!

The Power and Right of Recall, and any other remedy not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are found among the powers of the States, and in the overarching Rights of the people regardless of State, in the following two Constitutional Articles of Amendment...

Article 9 of the Bill of Rights

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people."

Article 10 of the Bill of Rights

"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."



"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever
may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the
dictates of our passions, they cannot alter
the state of facts and evidence."

~John Adams

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
This clause, Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution...

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."(underlining and coloring is mine for emphasis)

...does NOT give carte blanc and overarching supremacy to any federal law and or treaty. If the law or treaty are in any way at odds with the Constitution.... from the first "WE THE PEOPLE" in the Preamble to the last 3 words of the 10th Amendment, "...TO THE PEOPLE" is supreme.


Any federal law, regulation, signing statement, executive order, or any other edict that doesn't square precisely with the Constitution, as is also the case with any state law, regulation, or edict, would be, according to the Article VI Supremacy Clause as upheld by Marbury vs Madison, the same as no law at all, and need not be adhered to nor enforced...

This understanding and knowledge was the basis of the 10th Amendment movement of the 1990's that spread like wild fire in 1994-95. It gained enough steam under the radar to be of sufficient threat to the globalists that they provocateured the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in OKC. Through the media run up and demonization, they blamed their atrocity on We, the Constitutional Patriots.

The stinking, greedy, self-serving, criminal, parasitic, murdering bastards!


"Acts which are repugnant to the Constitution
are null and void."
~U.S. Supreme Court
Marbury v. Madison, 2Cranch 5 U.S. (1803)

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522

If the states refuse to recognize that the Federal Government has any power whatsoever, then what is the difference between that and secession?  If there is no unifying buffer that connects the states, then they truly are separate nations.  Don't you think that instead of totally refusing to accept the Federal Government as legitimate, that the states instead should begin the process of nullifying any law or mandate that they deem unconstitutional by consensus.  Then, after doing so, they begin the process of trying, or calling for the trial of, the people who commited this form of treason by excersising powers that they were never delegated.

I will assume what you are referring to here, is the bolded portion of the New Hampshire resolution. As I pointed out in the first paragraph of my last post, this is exactly why the New Hampshire resolution is constantly being defeated. It is because it contains secessionist language. As do a couple of other state resolutions that have used New Hampshire as a model.

In the third paragraph of my above post, I show the next step if the feds do not cease and desist upon receipt of the resolution...

"If they choose to continue, then the states put forth the Constitutional
State Sovereignty Act. This bill of law is enacted within the state, and emphasizes
that the state no longer recognizes any power exerted by the federal
government, that has not been determined by the state legislature to be
within the prescribed parameters set by the Constitution regarding federal power.

Thus it shall not, and therefore cannot become law within the state."

In my last post, I boiled down into one page, the entire process and procedure that must be adhered to in order to obtain lawful service and remedy. It worked well in the 90's, in getting these passed, before the unlawful false flag of OKC deflected and diverted the movement until now.  My last post would be well worth reading and rereading in order to understand why state legislatures are rightfully leery of signing on to legislation such as New Hampshire's.

The process of law is clear, for both sides, thus must be adhered to by both sides, and most assuredly by our side. The bottom line on New Hampshire's resolution is one of secession, and as long as that clause remains within the body of that resolution, it will not pass -- and of right should not pass!


"It [the Market Crash of 1929] was not accidental.
 It was a carefully contrived occurrence.... The
international bankers sought to bring about a
condition of despair here so that they might
emerge as rulers of us all."

~Rep. Lewis T. McFadden (R-PA), Chairman of the
House banking and finance committee (1920-31)

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
Re: Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World Order!
« Reply #47 on: November 10, 2014, 10:06:43 pm »
Here is an article from a column written by Sen. Charles R. Duke for a local El Paso County News Paper, during his time at the Colorado State House, where he became the innovator and founder of the Modern 10th Amendment Movement.

September 11, 1995
By Senator Charles R. Duke
Colorado District 9


In this column, several references have been made to the Emergency Banking and Relief Act of 1933. Those who read this column now know that Republicans in both California and Texas have taken steps to have this law repealed. Dr. Eugene Schroder of the American Agricultural Movement has alleged that this may be considered to be the genesis of the loss of our Constitutional rights.

Could it be there is one law responsible for all subsequent laws that trample our Constitutional rights? What was it about this law that many believe declared the American people to be enemies of the government? President Herbert Hoover (in the final days of his term) had refused to implement this law, which was based on a recommendation from the Federal Reserve. Why, then, did succeeding President Franklin Delano Roosevelt so warmly embrace this unconstitutional law? Why did FDR find it necessary to declare a national emergency, the effect of which was to suspend our Constitution, a suspension that exists to this day?

On October 6, 1917, the Congress had passed the Trading with the Enemy Act, dealing with how the government may control the activities of those considered to be enemies or allies of enemies of our government. Prior to 1933, Paragraph 5(b) of that Act read, "That the President may investigate, regulate or prohibit, under such rules as he may prescribe by means of foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)..."

Since 1917, then, the President had the power to seize or block financial transactions of those considered to be our enemy. It is also very clear that, in 1917, the Congress wanted to exclude the American people from the oppression of such powers. The bill was, after all, supposed to define our government's posture in dealing with our enemies or allies of our enemies.

The Emergency Banking and Relief Act, passed by Congress in special session on March 9, 1933, modifies paragraph 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act just discussed. The modified paragraph reads, "Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is completed. Whoever willfully violates any of the provisions of the subdivision of any license, order, rule or regulation issued there under, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000..."

This Act granted to the President broad sweeping investigative and prosecutorial powers against anyone, including the American people, found by the President to be an enemy. By removing the former "...transactions to be executed wholly within the United States..." the Congress was effectively putting the American people in the same category as our nation's enemies, and gave the President essentially dictatorial powers.

This Act was, of course, unconstitutional. Historians tell us FDR stacked the U.S. Supreme Court with judges who would vow to continue his dictatorial powers. Those powers have been assumed by all Presidents since FDR, including the one presently in the White House. Small wonder, then, that none have adhered to a strict upholding of our Constitution, despite swearing an oath before God to do so. The dictatorship would end, the Federal Reserve's stranglehold on our government would end, and our Constitutional Republic would be restored.

Later in 1933, Colorado's Governor Ed Johnson radically transformed Colorado state government, creating all the departments to handle such "licensing" privilege assumed by the President. That is the year a licensing authority was assumed by state governments to regulate marriages, driving, hunting, automobiles, and trade. Preliminary research indicates many other states were being transformed, as well. The governors, you see, had agreed to this unconstitutional assault a few days before March 9, 1933.

There are many subsequent laws to further reinforce and verify Dr. Schroder's contention. For those who wish to know more, you may contact him directly at P.O. Box 89, Campo, CO 81029. He has, in this author's opinion, accurately documented the beginning of the assault by your government on our Constitution. He has a number of books that will explain matters in any detail you would care to explore.

The solution to this exploitation of the American people is solely within the hands of the President. By simply issuing an Executive Order to end the state of emergency, our Constitution could be returned as the Supreme Law of the Land. So far in 1995, no Presidential candidate, except for Republican Charles Collins of Georgia, has had the courage to tell the truth about our nation's real troubles. Only a public demand of the highest magnitude will force our Constitution to the front again.



"Color of Law government, no matter it's structure,
will always manufacture crisis and catastrophe in the
same laboratory it creates the solutions, thus through
fear, tyranny turns every possibility into an opportunity
to grab greater power for itself."

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
Re: Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World Order!
« Reply #48 on: September 18, 2015, 10:36:34 am »
I thought this exchange of comments may be of value here...

Con-Con vs. Nullification(Video)

The New American Magazine 
By Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. 06 July 2015


Quote from: billwalker • 06 July 2015

The problem with nullification is there is not one word authorizing states being able to "nullify" federal statute. True many will jump to quote one part or another but doesn't it stand to reason given the fact the Founders were quite explicit in their document that if they had desired (or in the amendment proposals that followed) nullification power for the states, it would have been in the Constitution in clear and unmistakable language? As to the convention, the position of the JBS is well known. The fact is the Founders did place that in clear and unmistakable language. So consider: which method do you think the Founders favored?

Quote from:  lakeside227 in reply to billwalker • 07 July 2015
The Constitution delegates powers to the federal government, not state governments. Of course nullification isn't in the Constitution, other state powers aren't listed either. States have the power to do anything the Constitution doesn't specifically delegate to the federal government and specifically prohibit the states from doing.

Madison in Federalist 45:

"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."

Hamilton in Federalist 33:

"But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed." (emphasis in original)

Please note:
"These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such."

This is Hamilton saying that unconstitutional laws should be nullified, ignored, not obeyed.

Quote from:  JTCoyoté in reply to lakeside227 • 08 July 2015
The Court in Marbury v Madison concluded the same thing with regard to unconstitutional "laws" reinforcing the States power to nullify...

Where Marbury failed was in declaring the SCOTUS as the final arbitrator of what is or is not Constitutional.

The final analysis of constitutionality, the final arbitration is held as protected by the 10th Amendment, through a vote of 3/4 the states up or down... In other words, it takes 3/4 of the states to approve any federal measure... the states and the people are the final arbitrator.

Why change the Constitution by convention when all we need do to "Right the Ship" is to adhere to Constitution we have right NOW.

From Marbury vs Madison

"Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on."


Quote from: JTCoyoté in reply to billwalker •08 July 2015
The few necessary powers surrendered by the states to the federal agent are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8... the rest within are rules of procedure, governmental structure and absolutes for lawful process... all else falls under the jurisdiction of 9th and 10th Amendments... this includes the power to dissolve the federal government, which is referred to in the enabling document for the Constitution and therefore part and parcel of our foundation law, the Declaration of Independence.


Quote from: billwalker in reply to JTCoyoté •09 July 2015

I'm sorry but you are incorrect regarding the powers of the states to dissolve the federal government. Obviously you haven't read the Declaration of Independence. Allow me to quote, "...that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of THE PEOPLE [emphasis added] to alter or abolish it..." The power you refer is a power of the people NOT the states, hence if nullification were an authority it would require the consent of the people and they have already established how such power is to be wielded, by use of the amendment process. Thank you for presenting the final and conclusive argument that proves nullification, unless sanctioned by amendment, is unconstitutional by show such power is a power of the people not the states. By the terms of the Tenth Amendment therefore this power is denied the states.

Quote from: JTCoyoté in reply to billwalker • 09 July 2015

I cannot help but chuckle at your response here. You would have the people crawl all the way to Washington to change the federal government, when in fact they need only to walk over to their State House to get the job done. The vehicle of the state is the people's to constitutionally command..

You forget that the Declaration of Independence enabled the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Which is to say, it set forth the reasons and the essential prospectus by the people for its institution

The rights of the people are innumerable and the powers of the states are set by the people within the state constitutions, as prescribed by the parameters set in the Constitution at Article 4 Section 4.

You are fundamentally deficient in the understanding of how the Constitution actually works. And until you do know how it operates, you will always be trying to change it instead of adhering more closely to it.

if a majority of the people would take the small amount of time it would take to grasp the essential understanding within the documents, they would see all of the nefarious plug-ins the globalist have subsequently inserted into it (poison pills if you will) over the past 160 years to subvert it. They would also see how easy, using the LAW itself, it would be to right it once again.

The answer to your comment in a nutshell is this, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the people are the basis of all rights and the resulting power that accompanies these rights (ultimately protected by the 9th Amendment.) At the time of the framing of the Declaration of Independence, the form of government that would eventually emerge wasn't exactly clear. As it turns out the people, through their states, created a republic with a ladder of power complete with built-in checks and balances. In other words, the power of the people is wielded through the states, and is protected by the 10th Amendment.


Quote from: billwalker in reply to JTCoyoté • 10 July 2015

Then sir I put it to you. Please quote me one LAW state or federal that exists today which specifically states that the state has the right to nullify federal law. You speak of "if" all the time. If the people would or If someone would read, if a convention is held it will be a runaway (forget the fact Congress addressed this one and officially declared it was not). The only if that matters is this fact: IF you were right it would have already happened.

Quote from: JTCoyoté in reply to billwalker • 10 July 2015

I will put it back to you... show me the LAW that mandates the States to accept and follow any and all federal enactments?

I suggest you read the 10th Article of Amendment until you understand what it says and what it means.

"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."

Then read the preamble to The Bill of Rights which states the purpose for the Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments.

"Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."
--The Preamble to the Bill of Rights, fully Ratified with the first 10 Amendments on Dec. 15, 1791 (underlining for emphasis)

Over time, (specifically in the 160 years since the end of the civil war) the meanings of these clauses have been changed and perverted away from the benefit of the free people to the benefit of the corporate global bankers, the funders of communism and fascism, in the guise of socialism under the control of the anti-liberty monopolists and monarchs -- a return to the condition of the world prior to the American Revolution.

There is your LAW, sir -- time the people start enforcing it against "our" rouge federal agent.

"The American war is over; but this is far from being the case
with the American revolution. On the contrary, nothing but
the first act of the drama is closed."
~Benjamin Rush,
signer on the Declaration of Independence,
spoken at the end of British hostilities in the
American war for Independence, 1783


Quote from:  billwalker in reply to JTCoyoté •11 July 2015
First of all the quote you underlined simply means the states wanted amendments to the Constitution. Now as the Articles of Confederation still exist in force in this country and such authorization is contained in the Constitution, I will end this now: there is nothing in the Articles granting nullification to the states, nothing in the Constitution granting nullification to the states. In short, the only example you can find in the history of the United States of nullification is found in the Declaration of Independence. Problem is, that reads, "For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments" hence nullification--by the KING. This action was OPPOSED by the then colonies, later states. Thus it has always been the position of the colonies, later the states and still later the federal government, that nullification of laws is opposed, not supported. Even the idea of a convention of states has been opposed because any power of nullification resides not with the states but the people as expressed officially by the state of Delaware:

Quote from:  JTCoyoté in reply to billwalker •11 July 2015
Ah, shucks, BW...

You cannot show me a delegated federal power in the existing LAW where the states are prohibited the power of nullification, granted by the people of the several states and protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments. Yet as I and others here have shown clearly the power of nullification without doubt falls squarely within the states lawful powers under the Constitution.

Instead of showing proof of your assertion you harken back to the Articles of Confederation stating that there were no such powers to the states under the Articles, forgetting that the federal government under the Articles was essentially non existent with no legislative power over the states at all. In truth, the Articles are only referential in specific clauses and retained to some degree in the Constitution. Search as you may, you will find no twisting of the LAW that can convolve into being the federal prohibition you seek against state nullification from the well crafted verbiage that is the Constitution.

Your reference that the Articles of Confederation are still in force is misleading since virtually all preceding charters of law were used as precedent and reference in some small part in the crafting of our existing Constitution. Used to point out areas within the older law that support and are in agreement with the our existing LAW. Yet in no way do these references give the pre-existing law a priority of power over the Constitution. Most provisions of the Articles of Confederation were challenged, altered, and or removed from effect through the creation of the Constitution itself, and thereby nullified and cannot be used to alter the meaning of the Constitution in any way.

The fact that the Declaration of Independence is the enabling law for the Constitution (as it was also for the Articles of Confederation which the Constitution replaced) the same power of nullification resides in both documents in the hands of the people who created the individual states, and thereby created the Confederation. In 1787 the Articles were dissolved and we created the Constitution and Bill of Rights fully ratified in December of 1791. Within this Constitution a tightly controlled federal government was initialized. This federal department serves as the agent of the several states on the international stage. Make no mistake about it, in all cases it was the people doing the creating through the vehicle of the states. The people have the reins to the Constitution, all we need do is reach down and pick them up.

Finally, your red herring regarding the "Conference of States" being rejected in Delaware (as it has been in dozens of other states twice in the last 25 years) is exactly the vehicle needed for the whole Conference of States affair to undergo a metamorphosis in mid convention and transform into a full-blown republic killing constitutional convention.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights sets the parameters of natural right and power held by the people as well as the ceded or invested power the people lend to their state. Nullification of any federal mandate, or even constitutional amendments are fully within the peoples' right and controlling state power to nullify. I have shown you at least three clauses that emphatically support my position, and if motivated through their state legislatures the peoples' right and power would preclude and thus nullify any need for a dangerous Article V Constitutional Convention.

Arming the people with this knowledge, since you seem emphatic regarding it being the people's right, so the people understand and use the knowledge of the remedies to nullify unconstitutional "laws" as well as the nullification and elimination of the post civil war imperial subterfuge planted within the Constitution by our traditional Imperial global enemy (who we booted from our shores 240 years ago) have installed through infiltration, should be high on your list.

Remember, nowhere in the Article V of the Constitution, even in the portion governing constitutional conventions, does the word "people" appear. You may want to keep that in mind should you desire to take your argument elsewhere since it has been exposed here and found lacking.

Here is Article V:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The bolded portion of the above article was negated by the 17th Amendment which prohibits the state legislatures from electing federal senators. This is but one of the Globalists' usurping amendments instituted between 1865 and our entry into the First World War. There were three prior usurping amendments, can you name them? ... (chuckle) ...



"...the State of Colorado hereby claims sovereignty, under the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, over all powers
not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by
the United States Constitution."
~From HJR-94-1035, the First
10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution, 1994


  • Guest
Re: Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World Order!
« Reply #49 on: September 18, 2015, 11:10:25 am »
Reads to me that Bill Walker needs some help learning English.
His having trouble with his reading skills  :o

Its always the same, people don't like what it really says so they try and twist and distort until they change the meaning. Because this is dishonest, they will never ever get my support.

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
Re: Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World Order!
« Reply #50 on: September 18, 2015, 02:05:20 pm »
Reads to me that Bill Walker needs some help learning English.
His having trouble with his reading skills  :o

Its always the same, people don't like what it really says so they try and twist and distort until they change the meaning. Because this is dishonest, they will never ever get my support.

Yes. It was at this point that Mr. Walker bowed out of this discussion as he was a bit out of his depth. I can only hope that he continued to read as the thread progressed as follows...

Quote from:  JTCoyoté in reply to lakeside227 •11 July 2015


I just want folks to see that the American Revolution never stopped, it just went underground... we were never fighting the British people, or any other people... we the people have always been at war with the "we provocateur and finance all conflicting sides to gain power" corporate imperial banking elite and their boot-licking minions -- that very small minority of deranged-maniacs who lust obsessively for power and control.


Quote from: JTCoyoté in reply to lakeside227 • 12 July 2015

Madison's 1788 letter to Jefferson on the Bill of Rights is another priceless bit of extra curricular Constitutional wisdom...


Quote from: lakeside227 in reply to JTCoyoté • 12 July 2015

Thanks for the suggestion. Very interesting read. :)

Quote from:  JTCoyoté in reply to lakeside227 • 14 July 2015

Yes, very interesting indeed. In the second paragraph of this 1788 letter to Jefferson, Madison, whose influence in the framing of the Bill of Rights is second to none, makes a very telling statement regarding the direction and intention he saw for the amendment process. He said:

"My own opinion has always been in favor of
a bill of rights, provided it be so framed as not
to imply powers not meant to be included in
the enumeration."

Obviously his expressed intent was that the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments should error on the side of liberty and the people and were not intended to ingratiate, enhance, or augment the central government with any additional power to that already enumerated.

The 1st Amendment begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law..." yet beginning with the second clause of the present 13th Amendment there comes the first break with Madison's no usurpation by amendment maxim with these words:

"Congress shall have power to enforce
this article by appropriate legislation."

The 16th Amendment (three unconstitutional central power enhancing amendments later) boldly begins with the words "Congress shall have the power..."

Our work is cut out for us in our quest to educate and reclaim our birthright.


Quote from:  lakeside227 in reply to JTCoyoté • 16 July 2015

That was Hamilton's objection - that including a BoR would allow the federal government to assume powers not delegated. The feds would see the specific prohibitions as allowing them to do things not specifically prohibited. Enumerating some Rights in the Constitution allowed SCOTUS to assume it had authority to define those Rights and to define what infringed on those Rights; it allowed Congress to assume it had authority to regulate those Rights - even though no authority to regulate them had ever been delegated to the federal government.

Hamilton is not one of my favorite Founders, but he was right on this issue.

Quote from:  JTCoyoté in reply to lakeside227 • 16 July 2015

Hamilton was correct in his prediction of what could eventually happen, but the logic in his prediction was lacking in predicting the blame would be borne on the back of a properly constructed Bill of Rights. The powers he feared have no delegated parent anywhere within the charters of the Constitution itself... these powers as they have become vested in the Central government are pure lawless usurpations. They are however notwithstanding as they will be simple fodder for the states to depose of with the sword and axe of the 9th and 10th Amendments, collectively wielded within the States in the hands of the people.

Things would have been much worse had the Bill of Rights not been added and ratified as part and parcel allong with the 1787 Constitution. The precious document finally ratified in 1791 has become an enormous thorn in the side of the globalist imperialists from the very moments before the ink of John Adams' signature as the Seal, had dried...


Quote from:  lakeside227 in reply to JTCoyoté • 17 July 2015

They most definitely are usurpations. So many illegal actions have been, and continue to be, done under the 'general welfare' clause, taxation clause, commerce clause, and necessary & proper clause.

Side note...the 'general welfare' clause doesn't exist. It's the taxation clause, the purpose of which is to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare. However, 'general welfare' was never, and still is not, an enumerated power - neither is common defense. Both of these are general terms which are then specifically spelled out in, and limited by, the following clauses.

I agree, if only the state would stand up to the federal government. The states have become too dependent on federal money and too complacent, too used to believing the feds are the masters.

This precious document has grown to become an enormous thorn in the side of the globalist imperialists from the very moments just before the ink of John Adams' signature as the Seal, had dried...

My concern grows every day.

Quote from:  JTCoyoté in reply to lakeside227 • 17 July 2015

Much nefariousness was perpetrated by global interests to cloud the meaning of certain clauses in the Constitution by way of amendment, punctuation alterations, word combining and dissembling; as well as the complete repeal of one fully ratified article of amendment. Most of this was accomplished during the chaotic decades after the assassination of Lincoln through the end of WWI.

The Constitution needs a reboot which will require much attention by the States, to a restore point before the civil war. To a point when the 1791 Constitution was in force and there were only 3 external amendments including the Original 13th. The civil war was globalist calculated as a divide and conquer maneuver initiated by the crowned banks of Europe to stop Americans from becoming truly prosperous and realizing the truth. To quote German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck on this:

"It is not to be doubted, I know with absolute certainty, that
the separation of the United States into two federations of
equal powers had been decided upon well in advance of the
Civil War by the top financial power of Europe."

The intelligentsia in England and Europe, (those who followed politics in the newspapers and saw themselves as participants in the "Great Game") understood what America was about and the danger it represented to them. The following quote appeared in an 1862 Times of London article supporting the monarchical method of world control through feudal economics:

" If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origins in
North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture,
then that government will furnish its own money without cost.
It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the
money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become
prosperous without precedent in the history of the world.
The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America.
That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every
monarchy on the globe."

Bottom line is that people must wake up, become conscious of the fact and reality that the same anti-liberty factions that we fought and ousted by overt war from 1775 to 1783, and again from 1812 to 1815, have been working covertly against us ever since, undermining our laws and institutions in a centuries long siege that is now come to a head. Our 9th Amendment Rights and the 10th Amendment powers they create will prove to be our sword and shield as we collectively and consciously enter this battle in the War for Re-Constitution .


Quote from:  lakeside227 in reply to JTCoyoté •16 July 2015
P.S. I do not like how the Amendments changed from restricting government to granting them powers. Although, the Founders did say amendments were to correct defects in the Constitution or to address situations not foreseen by the Founders. I take that as meaning delegating to Congress new powers - if needed - that's the correct method, the Constitutional way, to grant new powers to the feds. Not through the government's illegal redefinition of the Constitution or the Amendments.

My answer to this last comment is to reiterate what I stated before, the main framer of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, stated in his 1788 letter to Jefferson that using the amending process to usurp powers of the states and or the rights of the people was not the appropriate nor proper purpose intended or acceptable from the amending process.

Matters of due process, and the accommodation of technological advances however were considered okay as long as they extended the boundaries of liberty and freedom. Usurpation on the other hand is usurpation and amending to accomplish it is unconstitutional on it's face. It begins to show it's ugly shadow however beginning with section 2 of the post civil war 13th Amendment.


"The only constitutional exception to the power of making
treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution.... On
natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray
or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null."

~ Alexander Hamilton

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
Re: Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World Order!
« Reply #51 on: September 23, 2015, 12:40:19 am »
Here is James Madison's letter mentioned early on in the last post... well worth the read.

James Madison's letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788
On the Bill of Rights

Dear Sir,--The little pamphlet herewith inclosed will give you a collective view of the alterations which have been proposed for the new Constitution. Various and numerous as they appear, they certainly omit many of the true grounds of opposition. The articles relating to Treaties, to paper money, and to contracts, created more enemies than all the errors in the system, positive and negative, put together.

It is true, nevertheless, that not a few, particularly in Virginia, have contended for the proposed alterations from the most honorable and patriotic motives; and that among the advocates for the Constitution there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty and individual rights. As far as these may consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution. There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided as to its importance and its propriety. My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights, provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time, I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I supposed it might be of use, and, if properly executed, could not be of disservice.

I have not viewed it in an important light--1. Because I conceive that in a certain degree, though not in the extent argued by Mr. Wilson, the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. 2. Because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition, would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power. One of the objections in New England was, that the Constitution, by prohibiting religious tests, opened a door for Jews, Turks, and infidels. 3. Because the limited powers of the federal Government, and the jealousy of the subordinate Governments, afford a security which has not existed in the case of the State Governments, and exists in no other. 4. Because experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its controul is most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State.

In Virginia, I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current. Notwithstanding the explicit provision contained in that instrument for the rights of conscience, it is well known that a religious establishment would have taken place in that State, if the Legislative majority had found, as they expected, a majority of the people in favor of the measure; and I am persuaded that if a majority of the people were now of one sect, the measure would still take place, and on narrower ground than was then proposed, notwithstanding the additional obstacle which the law has since created.

Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents. This is a truth of great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to; and is probably more strongly impressed on my mind by facts and reflections suggested by them than on yours, which has contemplated abuses of power issuing from a very different quarter. Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful and interested party than by a powerful and interested prince. The difference, so far as it relates to the superiority of republics over monarchies, lies in the less degree of probability that interest may prompt abuses of power in the former than in the latter; and in the security in the former against an oppression of more than the smaller part of the Society, whereas, in the latter, it may be extended in a manner to the whole.

The difference, so far as it relates to the point in question--the efficacy of a bill of rights in controuling abuses of power--lies in this: that in a monarchy the latent force of the nation is superior to that of the Sovereign, and a solemn charter of popular rights must have a great effect as a standard for trying the validity of public acts, and a signal for rousing and uniting the superior force of the community; whereas, in a popular Government, the political and physical power may be considered as vested in the same hands, that is, in a majority of the people, and, consequently, the tyrannical will of the Sovereign is not to be controuled by the dread of an appeal to any other force within the community.

What use, then, it may be asked, can a bill of rights serve in popular Governments? I answer, the two following, which, though less essential than in other Governments, sufficiently recommend the precaution: 1. The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the National sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion. 2. Although it be generally true, as above stated, that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter source; and on such, a bill of rights will be a good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community. Perhaps, too, there may be a certain degree of danger that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers may, by gradual and well-timed advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty. Should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard against it, especially when the precaution can do no injury.

Governments to danger on that side. It has been remarked that there is a tendency in all Governments to an augmentation of power at the expense of liberty. But the remark, as usually understood, does not appear to me well founded. Power, when it has attained a certain degree of energy and independence, goes on generally to further degrees. But when below that degree, the direct tendency is to further degrees of relaxation, until the abuses of liberty beget a sudden transition to an undue degree of power. With this explanation the remark may be true; and in the latter sense only is it, in my opinion, applicable to the existing Governments in America. It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government have too much or too little power, and that the line which divides these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.

Supposing a bill of rights to be proper, the articles which ought to compose it admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions, however strongly marked on paper, will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public; and after repeated violations, in extraordinary cases will lose even their ordinary efficacy. Should a Rebellion or insurrection alarm the people as well as the Government, and a suspension of the Habeas Corpus be dictated by the alarm, no written prohibitions on earth would prevent the measure. Should an army in time of peace be gradually established in our neighborhood by Britain or Spain, declarations on paper would have as little effect in preventing a standing force for the public safety. The best security against these evils is to remove the pretext for them.

With regard to Monopolies, they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in Government. But is it clear that, as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public to abolish the privilege, at a price to be specified in the grant of it? Is there not, also, infinitely less danger of this abuse in our Governments than in most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many to the few. Where the power is in the few, it is natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as with us, is in the many, not in the few, the danger cannot be very great that the few will be thus favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many. . . . James Madison


"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

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
Our 9th & 10th Amendment Resolve, Will Defeat the NWO, Not a Con-Con!!
« Reply #52 on: January 09, 2016, 12:08:09 pm »
Texas Governor Introduces Groundbreaking Plan to Override Obama’s Tyranny
Outspoken governor calls for Constitutional Convention to restore Rule of Law, take back states' rights

Adan Salazar 
January 8, 2016

Texas Governor Introduces Groundbreaking Plan to Override Obama's Tyranny

"Texas Governor Greg Abbott made good on his promise to challenge President Obama’s gun control initiatives Friday, calling for a Constitutional Convention of US states to create several new amendments aimed at reasserting states’ rights.

Among nine proposed amendments, “The Texas Plan” aims to prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state. Another amendment requires Congress to balance its budget, and another allows a two-thirds majority of states to override a US Supreme Court decision.

“Congress is unable to control itself. So the people must impose control,” Governor Abbott said during a speech before the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Abbott explained that federal lawmakers were out of step with the “Constitutional principles” our Founders put in place, and urged other states to join Texas in helping to “fix the cracks in our Constitution.”

“The increasingly frequent departures from Constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built,” Abbott said, specifically citing President Obama’s recent executive authorizations infringing on the Second Amendment.

“We are succumbing to the caprice of man that our Founders fought to escape. The cure to these problems will not come from Washington D.C. Instead, the states must lead the way. To do that I am adding another item to the agenda next session. I want legislation authorizing Texas to join other states in calling for a Convention of States to fix the cracks in our Constitution.”

Abbott’s declaration and 92-page proposal follows an appearance by the president in a televised town hall-style meeting hosted by CNN, in which the Commander-in-Chief attempted to convince Americans that executive orders infringing on the Second Amendment were a good idea.

Responding to the announcement, Abbott – a strong advocate for gun rights – promised, “Texas will take every action to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

“The Bill of Rights was added as a specific safeguard to prevent the federal government from denying Americans those guaranteed rights,” Abbott said in a press release Tuesday. “Today, the President trampled the purpose and substance of the Bill of Rights by unilaterally imposing Second Amendment restrictions.”

The outspoken Republican governor made his intent to disobey executive orders imposed by the president clear over the weekend in a pointed tweet, challenging Obama to “Come and take it.” [...]


After a quick skimming over of Abbott's proposal: Abbott's premise is FLAWED.

It is clear from the very first sentence of the governor's proposal, attached to the above article that he does not understand the real problem.  He states that the Constitution is being eroded with each passing year.  This is not true.  The Constitution is as strong today as it ever was.  Where the problem lies is in the hundreds of thousands of unconstitutional external enactments in the form of bureaucratic rules, regulations, policies, directives, signing statements, enacted unconstitutional statutes, amendments, court opinions and rulings, executive orders, presidential policy directives, and the list goes on. 

These unconstitutional miss-steps are mirrored in the states as well by legislators and governors who have either lost sight of the Constitution as the litmus test for any legislation they may enact or policy they would put forth, or they are deliberate in their constitutional neglect for the purpose of power or control side-stepping the Constitution. 

This kind of governing by edict and fiat deluge IS the problem. The Constitution is not the problem, otherwise there wouldn't be so many trying to open it up for change. As it stands today it's strong enough to weather even this monumental attempt to change it to fit their program rather than wiping away the freedom limiting warehouses full of unconstitutional "color of law" by the processes the founders designed into the Constitution.

The founding fathers placed the 9th and the 10th Amendments at the end of the Bill of Rights as the re-enforcing statements defining where the true governing power resides - the People and the States.  These two Articles of amendment are the power and process the people and the states need for "Taking out the trash" to use an appropriate phrase for what needs to be done here.  Remember, the Constitution cannot be amended, altered, or weakened by any external color of law. 

Over the last 240 years the local, state, and federal governments have enacted mountains of legislation much of which is unconstitutional. It is time to take out the trash people! The Constitution lays out the method whereby this trash is removed.  This Legislative weeding process is done at the state level which is where the lion's share of the governing power actually exists when the Constitution is followed.  State 10th Amendment pruning by delegislation based on strict Constitutionality and necessity is only one of the methods suggested. Also Remember, we didn't get in this predicament overnight and just like a bodily detoxification take some time, this process will keep legislators busy for quite awhile.

Some of the trash that needs to be removed are in the form of unconstitutional and questionable power grabbing amendments to the Constitution itself.  None of these questionable amendments are found within the body of the Constitution or Bill of Rights however.  Therefore a constitutional convention which would be needed to open up the fully Ratified 1791 Constitution and Bill of Rights to outright change, is not unnecessary since the Constitution and Bill of Rights are NOT the problem. 

As is indicated elsewhere in this thread the methods for accomplishing the task of cleansing are simple but require resolve on the part of the people in hold our state legislators feet to the fire and to apprise ourselves of what our legislators are doing and what they should not be doing.  After all not adhering to this last part is how we got into this mess in the first place. 

I will re-post the reply I posted into another thread when I first found out about this move by Texas Governor Abbott ... I think it appropriate and it is way on topic.

This is ridiculous. The Constitution already lays out the rule of law the federal government has to follow. All we have to do is hold them to it. Calling a Constitutional Convention will open the door for the globalists to destroy the Constitution once and for all. What we need to do is abolish the federal government and create a new one that follows the Constitution we have. I don't like it, not one bit, I'm going to wait for JT to respond, in the meantime I'm going to do a search to find the multiple threads where JT shot down Conventions.

This was dangerous enough even when we had Madison, Jefferson, Mason, Adams, Washington, and Hamilton conducting the process. God Almighty Forbid this madness, I pray! What we have government wide, local, state, and federal today doesn't amount to the dirt under the fingernails of Jefferson on a bad day.

All the power we need is already there in the fully ratified Constitution of 1791. Anything that contradicts it in any federal, state, or local statute, any Amendment, any regulation, any policy, any bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, any executive order, or any other color of law can be swept away by the state legislatures using the 10th Amendment power of the individual states and the righteous and rightful 9th Amendment will of the people... all without calling a convention.

It doesn't take a Constitutional Convention to accomplish Abbott's objective... A Con Con would be a distraction and a time waster, a very dangerous one to boot.

We had the NWO on the ropes in the year leading up to the OKC bombing using the 9th and 10th Amendments as the framers designed them to be used against a usurpation government going tyrannical... we do not need to open up the organic 1791 Constitution to get this done today either. Why waste the time when we have all the power we need right now!! Folks must wake up to it and push there Reps and other "officials" to get on the same page or the fire will surely burn the hell out of their feet.


"...the State of Colorado hereby claims sovereignty, under the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, over all powers
not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by
the United States Constitution."
~From HJR-94-1035, the First
10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolution, 1994


"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

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
Re:Our 9th & 10th Amendment Resolve, Not a Con-Con, Will Defeat the NWO!!
« Reply #53 on: January 09, 2016, 10:56:04 pm »
You can see how the internet provides a look at our true history and our true government on sites like this working to save our Constitution and Republic. We are winning the infowar and educating folks far more efficiently than any government department or office, Constitutional Convention, or Conference of States, ever could... truth is their purpose is quite the opposite actually.

We do not need a Con Con to defuse the weaponized federal government. Abbott has access to the state governors... if we would've had the governors with us in 1994 and '95 instead of against us as they were, a 10th amendment state sovereignty push to downsize the feds would have succeeded in months. Abbott could easily accomplish this using the usual Statehouse to Statehouse methods we employed state to state back then, without a Con-Con. There is absolutely NO need for what I see as his 9 senseless and redundant amendments. Also, State's Rights is a misnomer... People have Rights which they lend and transmit to the States as Powers... States then have Powers given them through the Rights of the People. If the people surrender and loose their inalienable Rights, the States loose all rightful power... (thought I would clear that up)...

With that said, the second paragraph of Gov. Abbott's 92 page Constitutional convention call hits close to the main root of the problem, which is not a short coming of the Constitution, but is actually a fraud committed by the globalists against the country's original time honored decentralized education system. He states...

But today, most Americans have no idea what our Constitution says. According to a recent poll, one-third of Americans cannot name the three branches of government; one-third cannot name any branch; and one-third thinks that the President has the “final say” about the government’s powers. Obviously, the American people cannot hold their government accountable if they do not know what the source of that accountability says.

This is of course true and is a big problem, a by-design "Department of Education" bureaucratic problem.  A problem created by an unconstitutional bureaucracy that is the product of the idea that if the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit the federal government from engaging in a specific activity the Constitution must then allow the federal government to engage in that activity.  This is a sleight of hand federal fallacy, a direct violation of the 9th and 10th Articles of the Bill of Rights. A fallacy that has created dozens of unconstitutional federal bureaucracies and a plethora of unconstitutional usurpations of state and individual Power and Right.

In this case the National Education Association and the Department of Education under the executive branch of the federal government, has no interest in teaching American students in the US government schools anything at all about our rightful, free, and unique American system of self-government. No, that would run contrary to their "plantation" model where being a slave is to be seen as the revered mark of excellence, at least according to Melisa Harris-Perry...(sic)

Prior to late 1963 all education was under state and local control with the curriculum being assembled and adjusted by the local associations of parents and teachers, the PTA.  Up until that time this system created the most politically astute, creative, and educated people in the world. 

Conversely, the federal "educational" bureaucracy in its close to 50 year history has produced one of the most politically unaware, dumbed down, uneducated electorates in the world.  All controlled unconstitutionally at the federal level... the result is today the government "indoctrinated" people along with their government "educated" and selected representatives are totally in the dark regarding what the Constitution actually says and means, even though it is written at an eighth grade grammar and comprehension level.

This Executive Branch "department" was to be one of the first dismantled by the states once the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Movement reached the ratifying majority of 38 states back in 1995... but then the OKC false flag put a quick halt to the movement. A false flag of this sort could not be pulled off so easily today, you can bet their methods 20 years hence are much more sophisticated. Thus, honest and truthful education is one of the keys to foil their efforts, and to enliven the Constitution in the minds and hearts of our young people.

(More to come here as we tackle each amendment Governor Abbott seeks to add to the Constitution by Con-Con, one by one and show how the people and the states already hold the Rights and Powers in his list of  "nine." Some of the amendments he lists are in reaction to federal "law" that isn't Law under the Constitution which makes the so-called federal law as well as his proposed amendment a nullity on it's face. However, by passing the amendment and making it part of the Constitution it gives power to the federal non-law it seeks to control. Burdening the Constitution with more amendments that are based on "non-law" as has been ongoing since the civil war, is to create the situation described by Charles de Montesquieu when he stated, "Useless laws weaken necessary laws."...JT)

"We the People” can reign in the federal government and restore the balance of power between the States and the United States. The Texas Plan accomplishes this by offering nine constitutional amendments:

I. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

II. Require Congress to balance its budget.

III. Prohibit administrative agencies and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them from creating federal law.

IV. Prohibit administrative agencies and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them from preempting state law. 

V. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. 

VI. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law. 

VII. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. 

VIII. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

IX. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.


"[The purpose of a written constitution] is to bind up
the several branches of government by certain laws,
which, when they transgress, their acts shall become
nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people,
 or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of
their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall
be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."

~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia 1782

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,522
Before I continue with my breakdown of Abbott's "redundant and futile" proposed amendments here are a few facts that everyone should research for themselves so all are on the same page in understanding what must be dismantled before we can start adding anything which would in fact be nothing more than additional strands of webbing to that which now imprisons our Constitution.

Here goes...

The fully ratified original 13th Amendment, which suddenly disappeared during the civil war to the delight of the British Accredited Registry, needs to be reinstalled in it's rightful place of power.

The Present 13th Amendment (which is actually the 14th Amendment as it appears in the 1866 Laws of Colorado) needs the 2nd section expunged. The entire amendment list of Federal Power Grabbing Amendments from the present 14th through the 27th all must be repealed... I believe that takes care of the 17th Amendment as well, which incidentally took equal suffrage or representation within the federal government away from the States. Wonder how that might effect a Con-Con?

All of this house cleaning and trash removal is accomplished with 9th and 10th Amendment nullification by at least 38 states independently through Joint Resolution, and or with bills passed by a veto proof majority within each state's legislature... then the problem will be resolved quickly... Oh and there must be a repealing of the DC Organic Act of 1871 which was given equal power to the Constitution when it was passed in February of that year by Congress. This act set into landslide motion the landmark destruction of our republic and will have to be exorcised to a nullity. All of this can be accomplished within the states by nullification bypassing the danger of a Con-Con.

Chew on these facts for a while... it seems Queen Vic may have won the civil war... don't ya know...


"The moment the idea is admitted into society that
property is not as sacred as the law of God, and
that there is not a force of law and public justice
to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence"
~John Adams