[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Massive Property Tax Fraud Exposed - $5.1 Trillion Bond Scam Will Crash System

Israel Sold American Weapons to Azerbaijan to Kill Armenian Christians

Daily MEMES YouTube Hates | YouTube is Fighting ME all the Way | Making ME Remove Memes | Part 188

New fear unlocked while stuck in highway traffic - Indian truck driver on his phone smashes into

RFK Jr. says the largest tech companies will permit Americans to access their personal health data

I just researched this, and it’s true—MUST SEE!!

Savage invader is disturbed that English people exist in an area he thought had been conquered

Jackson Hole's Parting Advice: Accept Even More Migrants To Offset Demographic Collapse, Or Else

Ecuador Angered! China-built Massive Dam is Tofu-Dreg, Ecuador Demands $400 Million Compensation

UK economy on brink of collapse (Needs IMF Bailout)

How Red Light Unlocks Your Body’s Hidden Fat-Burning Switch

The Mar-a-Lago Accord Confirmed: Miran Brings Trump's Reset To The Fed ($8,000 Gold)

This taboo sex act could save your relationship, expert insists: ‘Catalyst for conversations’

LA Police Bust Burglary Crew Suspected In 92 Residential Heists

Top 10 Jobs AI is Going to Wipe Out

It’s REALLY Happening! The Australian Continent Is Drifting Towards Asia

Broken Germany Discovers BRUTAL Reality

Nuclear War, Trump's New $500 dollar note: Armstrong says gold is going much higher

Scientists unlock 30-year mystery: Rare micronutrient holds key to brain health and cancer defense

City of Fort Wayne proposing changes to food, alcohol requirements for Riverfront Liquor Licenses

Cash Jordan: Migrant MOB BLOCKS Whitehouse… Demands ‘11 Million Illegals’ Stay

Not much going on that I can find today

In Britain, they are secretly preparing for mass deaths

These Are The Best And Worst Countries For Work (US Last Place)-Life Balance

These Are The World's Most Powerful Cars

Doctor: Trump has 6 to 8 Months TO LIVE?!

Whatever Happened to Robert E. Lee's 7 Children

Is the Wailing Wall Actually a Roman Fort?

Israelis Persecute Americans

Israelis SHOCKED The World Hates Them


Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: STATE NULLIFICATION REAFFIRMATION ACT.... BROAD-BASED NULLIFICATION... CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS TO REIN IN FEDERAL POWER.... 9TH AND 10TH AMENDMENTS!!!
Source: Patriot Action Network
URL Source: http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com ... gs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
Published: Feb 28, 2011
Author: J. B. Williams
Post Date: 2011-02-28 11:24:55 by Phant2000
Keywords: None
Views: 176
Comments: 10

Montana, Arizona and Tennessee Take the Lead on Broad-Based Nullification

28 STATES CONSIDERING CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS OF REINING IN FEDERAL POWER

(Feb. 24, 2011) — As the battle for states’ rights heat up across the country, Montana and Arizona have leaped out into the lead by introducing the first broad-based State Nullification Reaffirmation Act designed to return the power to the people and their states and rein in federal government abuses of misinterpreted power.

The Model Legislation was researched and created by the Constitutional Justice Division of Wyoming-based United States Patriots Union.

This model legislation aims to reaffirm and reassert broad-based sovereign state’s rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by providing both the constitutional grounds and legislative methods by which states can swiftly nullify any past, present or future unconstitutional acts of the federal government.

The primary parts of the model include the following;

a) Establish the constitutional grounds for state nullification

b) Establish a swift method for nullification of any unconstitutional federal act, past, present or future

c) Establish that only the US Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction” under Article III of the US Constitution

d) Establish that the people (not the courts) have the final word

e) Establish the very limited role and power of the federal government under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments

f) Reject modern expansions of power via misinterpretations of the commerce, welfare and supremacy clauses

g) Regain state and citizen control over the runaway FED

The Arizona bill SB 1433, passed out of committee last week on a 5-2 vote and is reportedly headed to the floor of the Arizona legislature this week. Senator Lori Klein is leading the effort in Arizona.

The Montana bill HB 0382 was introduced first by Montana Rep. Skees, and passed out of committee on February 21, 2011. A total of 28 state legislatures are working on some form of the broad-based bill at present with at least a dozen more states expected to introduce over the coming days.

Tennessee introduced the bill in HB 1705 by Rep. Matthew Hill and SB 1474 by Senator Stacy Campfield.

We often do not know where the bill is being worked until it is introduced. Some states are working with an older version of the model, missing significant changes in the latest 2.2 version issued by Ketay.

The primary contact for the Constitutional Justice Division of Patriots Union is Barbara Ketay. Barbara led the research and drafting of the Model Bill.

Attorney Stephen Pidgeon is the legal spokesperson for The United States Patriots Union regarding the State Nullification Reaffirmation Act.

“The act is right where it needs to be. Out west, this is a huge deal. Utah has had a majority of its land seized by the FED. Alaska has 2.5 times the size of California seized by the FED. Best thing to happen in years. The act is so straight-forward, a restatement of what the states can already (and should) do.” – said Attorney Stephen Pidgeon

Attorney Stephen Pidgeon can be reached at (425) 605-4774 for comment. Both Barbara Ketay and Stephen Pidgeon are available for interview on the State Nullification Act.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Phant2000 (#0)

We'll see if we can't get Arkansas to join in on this.

ndcorup  posted on  2011-02-28   13:46:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Phant2000 (#0)

These Dopes haven't bothered to read their 14th Amendment "State" Constitution (1870 to present). Had they bothered they would have observed that the "citizenship clause" had changed from Citizen of a state (article 4, Sec 2, clause 1) to U.S. citizen (14th Amendment Slave/Serf).

Another observation is a change in Territorial Jurisdiction claim now D.C. and Federal Territory (defined within State's Statutes on Statutes) from the 10th Amendment state's Jurisdiction defined within their first Constitution and Enabling Acts.

Yours in Observing the 10th is a Dead Letter for 14th Dupes,

Patrick

In effect, it’s (The Holacaust Inc.) become like a grotesque doll wielded by witch doctors, used to keep individuals from asking too many questions, from thinking for themselves and stepping out of line.

PatrickHenry  posted on  2011-03-01   1:11:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: PatrickHenry, Phant2000, ndcorup, All (#2)

These Dopes haven't bothered to read their 14th Amendment "State" Constitution (1870 to present). Had they bothered they would have observed that the "citizenship clause" had changed from Citizen of a state (article 4, Sec 2, clause 1) to U.S. citizen (14th Amendment Slave/Serf).

False. You know the Constitution better than that, don't you? Which raises the question of why you and other "technical advisors" are motivated to proliferate the reams of bogus sophistries about the 14th Amendment as if all that contorted claptrap somehow nullifies what it actually says. It doesn't. I suspect that the propaganda campaigns against that Amendment are largely to deflect attention from the power of Nullification by the States enshrined in sentence 2:

http://www.usconstitution.n et /const.html#Am14

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;

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-03-01   6:38:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: GreyLmist (#3)

Which raises the question of why you and other "technical advisors" are motivated to proliferate the reams of bogus sophistries about the 14th Amendment as if all that contorted claptrap somehow nullifies what it actually says.

This article was posted FYI and in no way do I hold myself out as a "technical advisor", nor as an interpreter of its contents. That is left to YOUR devices.

Phant2000  posted on  2011-03-01   9:45:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: GreyLmist (#3)

False and extra Dopey as per DC v Heller and the follow up McDonald.

If you would have bothered to read either of these cases it would have been apparent that 14th Dopes now enjoy the The 2nd as an "Incorporated Right". This is contrasted in both DC v Heller & McDonald with the preexisting Rights enjoyed by Citizens of a State.

See also The Slaughter-House cases:

"The expression, Citizen of a State, is carefully omitted here. In Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States, it had been already provided that 'the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.' The rights of Citizens of the States [under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1] and of citizens of the United States [under The Fourteenth Amendment] are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, recently decided by the Supreme court. The rights of Citizens of the State, as such, are not under consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions." United States v. Anthony: 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830 (Case No. 14,459) [1873]. 2

In fact the leading and controlling case on State Citizenship and United States Citizenship is the Supreme Court case, The Slaughter-House Cases (16 Wallace 36: 21 L.Ed. 394 [1873]). In this case, the Supreme Court distinguishes between State Citizenship and United States Citizenship.

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics of the individual." The Slaughter-House Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 74.

"The importance of the case can hardly be overestimated. By distinguishing between state citizenship and national citizenship and by emphasizing that the rights and privileges of federal citizenship do not include the protection of ordinary civil liberties such as freedom of speech and press, religion, etc., but only the privileges which one enjoys by virtue of his federal citizenship, the Court averted, for the time being at least, the revolution in our constitutional system apparently intended by the framers of the amendment and reserved to the states the responsibility for protecting civil rights generally." Cases In Constitutional Law by Robert F. Cushman, 5th Edition, pp. 250-251 (College Law Textbook) [1979]. "Citizenship is elaborated in two privileges and immunities clauses of the United States Constitution. . . . The Slaughter-House Cases [1873] 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, emphasized the distinct character of federal and state citizenship. Slaughter-House held that privileges and immunities conferred by state citizenship were outside federal reach through the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . Federal citizenship was seen as including only such things as interstate travel and voting. While subsequent decisions have extended the meaning of citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment, Slaughter-House is still controlling in that it precludes use of privileges and immunities language in protecting citizens by federal authority." Constitutional Law Deskbook - Individual Rights, by Chandler, Enslen, Renstrom; Second Edition, p. 634 (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, 1993).

"The Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. Slaughter-House Cases." 103d Congress, 1st Session, Document 103-6: The Constitution of the United States of America; Analysis And Interpretation: Annotations Of Cases Decided By The Supreme Court Of The United States To June 29, 1992, p. 1566. 1

In addition, the Supreme Court in The Slaughter-House Cases concluded that there are two citizens under the Constitution of the United States:

"The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established.

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.

The language is, 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States, in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and with a purpose.

Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment." The Slaughter-House Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at 73-74.

"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, p. 591 [1979].

In effect, it’s (The Holacaust Inc.) become like a grotesque doll wielded by witch doctors, used to keep individuals from asking too many questions, from thinking for themselves and stepping out of line.

PatrickHenry  posted on  2011-03-01   11:06:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Phant2000, PatrickHenry, All (#4)

This article was posted FYI and in no way do I hold myself out as a "technical advisor", nor as an interpreter of its contents. That is left to YOUR devices.

It was PatrickHenry I was addressing as a "technical advisor" of sorts on the Constitution. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about that. I pinged you and everyone else as FYI on the 14th Amendment issues in question -- with particular emphasis on the citizenship-status strawman-dupery that's being mass- marketed very much like a fashion-industry of befuddlement -- and to refocus attention on the Nullification power of the States affirmed in the 2nd sentence of that Amendment, as per the topic of your thread.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-03-01   14:41:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: GreyLmist (#6) (Edited)

with particular emphasis on the citizenship-status strawman-dupery .

Patrick made no mention of a strawman and Gaymist is speaking out of his backside again. lol

Hi Gaymist,

It's funny how certain 14thtards like yourself cannot find one "point of reference" such as Landmark case law (Slaughter-House cases) to prove your nonsense. lol

Let's see if you can solve this riddle as a 14th former Slave Class advocate:

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics of the individual." The Slaughter-House Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 74.

Hint- See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Slaves were profoundly Ignorant much as the 14th slaves are today. Require permission to travel (Drivers License), need permission to Keep & Bear arms (most places), have no right to the fruit of their labor (income tax could be 20, 50, 90 or 100% for these fools), have no right to property as per the Kelo opinion. Citizens of a State on the other hand are "Self Governing" and enjoy unalienable rights (see recent DC v Heller and McDonald) . lol

Yours in Observing Gaymist's Brain Full of Straw and Jibber Jabber,

Patrick

**Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.[2] Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

In effect, it’s (The Holacaust Inc.) become like a grotesque doll wielded by witch doctors, used to keep individuals from asking too many questions, from thinking for themselves and stepping out of line.

PatrickHenry  posted on  2011-03-01   19:13:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: PatrickHenry (#5)

"The Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. Slaughter-House Cases."

That's a big improvement from the changeroo to Slave/Serf status characterization in your first comment here. I have a few points of contention in these two threads -- Exhibit A and Exhibit B -- that I'll try to note there eventually but otherwise appreciate the corroborations in them of the above quote, hopefully indicating better communication conditions than when the debate started. This link is a quick response on the Incorporation Doctrine, Slaughter-House Cases, and such so as to get us on the same page for this topic as much as possible for whatever discussions of it that there might be here wherever: Kevin Gutzman: Freedom vs the Courts.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-03-03   13:02:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: PatrickHenry (#7)

I see that I spoke a bit too soon or too late about the readings I thought indicated better communication conditions for the debate. My mistake. I'll just shrug it off and try to simplify all those convoluted stockpiles of cited lawyerly verbiage scattered around by you on this subject as best I can anyway. Such a lot of overcomplication for your brouhaha sector to avoid the simple fact that the several states weren't under some order to accept freed Blacks or anyone else they might prefer not to take in as their citizens so, to put an end to that limbo for them, our Federal government kindly did accept them all at once. By so doing, it didn't exclude others from the relevant 14th protections at the Federal level or downgrade the citizenships that the people did have at the time back to Slave/Serf, Slavery having already been abolished, in case you forgot. Now do try to have a nicer day. I intend to do that too.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-03-03   13:55:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: All (#8)

Exhibit A and Exhibit B

Just adding two more 14th Amendment threads and the topic titles to the consolidated list here for my access convenience.

Exhibit A: State Citizenship v 14th Slave/Serf Status

Exhibit B: Did the 14th Amendment do away with State Citizenship?

Exhibit C: Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment's First Section

Exhibit D: Person/Individual (as in 1040) Defined

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-03-05   4:47:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]