The "unConstitutional" Transfer of Power and the Nullification Party

July 30, 2005 | American Patriot

[Mamie2010]

States that have not yet called for a constitutional convention to propose a federal balanced budget amendment:

Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin

"UN Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005,"

UN trying to overturn "Second Amendment"

Pro-gun Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is getting ready to introduce a bill that would block the United Nations from implementing gun control measures affecting U.S. citizens

[SolidSupplySide]

This is simply not Constitutionally accurate. Treaties (along with the Constitution) are the supreme law of the law (Article VI).

CAFTA is not a treaty, even if you ignore the fact that the senate did not ratify it. It looks, acts, and most definitely is simple legislation.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Too much crap in one article to even bother with. Maybe that is why there are no comments.

[SolidSupplySide]

"Fast track authority" is a violation of the separation of powers because the President has then become the legislator

If that is true, what was that vote in Congress all about?

[rdb3]

If that is true, what was that vote in Congress all about?

You took the words right off my keyboard.

[KeyWest]

Constitutional Convention- bad, very bad and I would fight it to the max. In it you could ditch all our rights and impose all sorts of bad things. I like our current one and do not like what a bunch of PC/right/left crazies might impose on us. Let us fight to make those in power obey the current one. If you get a new one, who says anyone will follow it?

A new Constitutional Convention would lead to a revolution and who knows what else. Use your vote or run for office.

Man, where is the tinfoil?

[jos65]

You are exactly right.

[Mamie2010]

Article VI "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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

unconstitutional legislation and treaties without the consent of the "states" is not the law of the land --

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives" --- CAFTA did not begin in Congress

but to each his own -- that's why we also have "freedom of speech, or of the press;"

[Mamie2010]

Constitutional Convention- bad, very bad and I would fight it to the max. In it you could ditch all our rights and impose all sorts of bad things. I like our current one and do not like what a bunch of PC/right/left crazies might impose on us. Let us fight to make those in power obey the current one. If you get a new one, who says anyone will follow it? A new Constitutional Convention would lead to a revolution and who knows what else. Use your vote or run for office. Man, where is the tinfoil?

the Constitution is amended in two ways -- Constitutional convention or by the legislatures of the states. I like the one we have now too -- it just needs to be followed.

I'm not for any "Act of Congress" that puts the United States under the control of a foreign nation and nullifies the "bill of rights"

[Sgt_Schultze]

The government has been devolving into a ruling class since the 17th amendment went through. The states, as a Constitution equal no longer have an advocate in the government.

Before the Senators were elected by popular vote, their chamber was selected by the legislature of their respective statehouse. If they PO'd enough of their home state good ol' boys, they could be cashiered. And if the electorate became disenchanted with the sad state of their Senator, the voters had an opportunity to replace the offending legislators with ones who would vote to fire a Kennedy. Sadly today, the popular vote shields the Senators from voter wrath and from accountability to their state.

[Carry_Okie]

If that is true, what was that vote in Congress all about?

An unconstitutional delegation of authority.

[Mamie2010]

If that is true, what was that vote in Congress all about? An unconstitutional delegation of authority.
thank you ...

the 17th Amendment gave us a "stateless" society and all the "free trade" agreements that outsource American jobs is creating a "classless" society where we will be like a third world country with two classes of people --- the very wealthy and the very poor. Now we have foreign countries overturning OUR Constitution and the laws of the states . . . that's just plum 'un American!

[Carry_Okie]

It's really simple: The Constitution enumerated powers. Nowhere in the Constitution is there listed the power to delegate those enumerated powers.

Some people just don't understand the document.

Now, LEGALLY, the sovereignty of the people lapsed in the bankruptcy of 1933, for the paltry sum of, IIRC, a hundred billion in gold. We have been under Admiralty Law since then with the executor of that bankruptcy being the President. It's your typical lawyer driven sham.

[Mamie2010]

It's really simple: The Constitution enumerated powers. Nowhere in the Constitution is there listed the power to delegate those enumerated powers.

sadly our Congressmen don't understand that either . . . if they spent half the time doing what they could do as they do what they can't -- we might have a balanced budget and secure borders

We have been under Admiralty Law since then with the executor of that bankruptcy being the President. It's your typical lawyer driven sham.

EXACTLY! the federal government confiscates priviate property under "in rem" jurisdiction using the "taint doctrine" and Admirality Law -- confiscation of private property is prohibited under the Constitution as "bills of attainder"
the Constitution needs to be amended to protect the rights of the Citizens and the states

[lepton]

CAFTA did not begin in Congress

In the same sense that Budgets do not begin in Congress. The President submits what he thinks he needs, and Congressmen take it and submit it as a bill...but if no Congressman is willing to submit it, it just sits there as a proposal.

CAFTA is not a treaty, but a law...thus it can be repealed as a law if the Congress so decides, and the President does not veto...or Congress can over-ride the veto - and unlike with a treaty, the President can't just blow them off.

[Mamie2010]

It's your typical lawyer driven sham.

The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment
To The Constitution For The United States

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." [Journal of the Senate]

the "elite" were never intended to control the government . . . the 13th Amendment disappeared with President Abraham Lincoln along with the rest of the Constitution

[Carry_Okie]

I know about TONAH.

I'm authoring an article on the 14th Amendment that you will find illuminating. I'll let you know when it's posted.

[Iscool]

You and the article are absolutely correct...But what does a Constitution mean to a few Free Traitors...

[Mamie2010]

thanks I'd like to read it ... you're gonna open up a whole bunch of worms with the 14th amendment . . . don't you just looooove how the ACLU says "illegal aliens" have "equal protection" under the 14th amendment?

other than the fact it was not properly ratified by the states and was done at the end of a rifle under military occupation

Amendment XIV
(1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

I can be a "citizen" of the state I reside, and be a "person" in another state . . . but an "alien" is neither a citizen nor a "person" subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- they are subject to the jurisdiction of a 'foreign power'

[Mamie2010]

You and the article are absolutely correct...But what does a Constitution mean to a few Free Traitors...

I like that "Free Traitors"!