Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

The Constitution in Exile by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

November 19, 2009 by  

Almost since its adoption in July 1789, the U.S. Constitution—the oldest continuously effective written constitution in the world—has been under assault by presidents, Congress and errant decisions handed down by Supreme Court justices.

That’s the view of Judge Andrew P. Napolitano in his book, The Constitution in Exile.

Napolitano, the senior judicial analyst for Fox News Channel, New Jersey judge and legal professor and talk radio co-host, describes what the founders envisioned when they wrote the constitution. He explains Natural Law—that rights are endowed by a Creator, not by government—and what that idea meant to the Founders and should mean to us today. He describes Natural Law’s opposite—Positivisim—which is the idea that the law is whatever those in power say it is.

And, Napolitano lists and describes the 18 enumerated powers granted to government by the constitution and what each of them means, as well as the purpose behind the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

He writes:

“In establishing our system of separate powers, checks and balances, and federalism, the Founders limited Congress—and thus the will of Positivists—to eighteen specific, enumerated, and delegated powers. Those three words are important. Specific means something that is definite or explicitly set forth. Enumerated refers to things that are listed individually by their identifying characteristics. Delegated refers to a power that has been assigned by one party another.

“The Founders did this to create a system of government in which power is diffused between the states and the central government and diffused further within the central government. State sovereignty is maintained; and because governmental power was not concentrated anywhere, individual liberty is protected…”

The judge takes the reader on a legal course through American history outlining the first assault that began with the Judiciary Act of 1789, passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress, and the effects the 1800 presidential election had on the makeup of the federal judiciary.

After Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams for the presidency, the Federalist-controlled Congress created 42 additional judgeships and then Adams appointed Federalist John Marshall as chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Jefferson voided the appointment of the “Midnight Judges” and one of them, William Marbury, sued directly to the Supreme Court. Two years later, after much legal wrangling over Marbury’s suit, the Supreme Court ruled that portions of the Judiciary Act of 1789 were unconstitutional and Marbury had sued in the wrong court.

That result made it appear as if Marshall was in favor of limiting Congress’ powers to those enumerated. But future decisions by Marshall and his court showed his desire was to centralize power, and Napolitano covers the individual cases and what they meant.

Napolitano also covers the Federalism of Abraham Lincoln and how his unconstitutional actions before and during the Civil War further centralized power, and how Lincoln’s actions affected the Constitution.

The next great assault on the Constitution came from Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and Roosevelt’s threat and then his attempt to stack the court or alter its very makeup. And Napolitano covers that era in great detail.

Included in that era is the beginning of the use of the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to grant Congress the power to regulate almost everything, a ploy that continues apace to this day.

And then there is the assault on freedom known as the USA PATRIOT Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush while the rubble of 9/11 still smoldered.

“The PATRIOT Act is the most unpatriotic of the things that the Bush administration and this Congress could have visited upon us,” Napolitano writes. “When then-Attorney General John Ashcroft advocated before the House Judiciary Committee, he said, in effect, ‘we need the powers under this PATRIOT Act. We need them so badly—there are so many bad people out there we need to prosecute—that there isn’t enough time to debate it.’”

And without debate it passed.

Among other things, the USA PATRIOT Act effectively voided the Fourth Amendment and gave federal agents and local police the authority to write their own search warrants and serve them without the intervention of a judge. Such a thing would be anathema to the Founders.

This book is written in the plain, easy to understand language that Napolitano uses every day on Fox and on his radio show. It’s a roadmap of the assaults hoisted upon our Constitution, and hence our freedoms, throughout the 200-plus years of that great document’s existence.

Among other things, The Constitution in Exile shows that the power grab going on today is not new, but rather is the culmination of many years of assaults led by those who believe that government knows best.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Constitution in Exile by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Conservatives United, USA

    It is time that “WE THE PEOPLE” start to take back our constitution, and begin to return this nation to the True Constitutional Government that the framers envistioned. We can do this by starting at the Grass Roots level. It will not be easy, and it will take time, but we the people have the power to do so. We must stop being complacent, stop only talking, BUT ACT NOW.

    • Jamie W.

      I most heartily agree. If we don’t take a stand, the America we know and love will disappear. My question is: HOW?? What do we do? I watch Glenn Beck everyday and am astounded at what is uncovered! I truly had no idea what a “progressive” was, had heard the term and just figured it was another tag the Democrats had given themselves. It even has a nice “sound”. Progressive…sure! Never dreamed they want to dismantle the Republic! So, with all due respect, where do we start? We’ve had the Tea parties, contacted our representatives and — are ignored. What next?

      • mel

        WE CAN TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK. GO TO GOOOH.COM AND BE APART OF THE SOUTION.

      • Steve Magruder

        You are being brainwashed against Progressives, sir. Progressives support the Republic like anyone else who supports the Constitution. Progressives and Conservatives can choose to work in the system the founders gave us, or work outside it. Your choice. GOOOH’s choice is to work outside it.

        • Joseph A Stone

          The truth is you can’t be ignorant and free.. And if I read your statement you sir scare me!

    • mel

      WE CAN TAKE OUR CONSTITUTION BACK. GO TO GOOOH.COM

    • Hugo Brandstetter

      The highest law of the land isn’t the constitution, it’s the declaration of independence. It promised the people certain things that they didn’t get in the articles of confederation. The next try was the constitution and it was still not what the declaration promised. So we got the bill of rights thanks to Madison. Still not all the declaration promused. Maybe some day. The declaration didn’t say who or what the creator was but it did say “self evident”. Thats enough.

    • Joseph A Stone

      If we truly want to put the Feds and state government back in the framework of the constitution then we need to exercise the greatest right our founding fathers gave to us. The jury vote, remember We are the rightful masters of both courts and congress not to overthrow rhe government but overthrow the men that pervert it.. They can’t control us if they can’t convict us!! We have the right to decide the facts of the law as well as the law! I personally believe with an educated jury system we the people would be liberated from the band of restraints.. Ask the judge I believe he understand this better than anyone. We need a grassroots movement to educate people on their right to nullify unjust and unconstitutional laws..

  • Kerry Marvin

    T0: SENATOR ALEXANDER,
    SENATOR CORKER,

    SIR, I INVITE YOU TO STAND UP FOR THE TENTH AMENDMENT AND OUR STATES RIGHTS,ALONG WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS FOR “ALL” OF “WE THE PEOPLE” IN ACCORDANCE WITH, YOU’RE OATH OF OFFICE.

    TO WHIT: TO: PROTECT AND DEFEND; THE CONSTITUTION FROM “ALL” ENEMIES FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.
    AT THIS TIME IT WOULD SEEM TO ME AND OTHERS. THAT IT IS AS “POGO” SAID;
    “WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND IT IS US!” UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS: OUR “REPRESENTATIVES” IN “WASHINGTON”, THIS OUT OF CONTROL: “CONGRESS”, “SENATE” AND, “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”, “PRESIDENT!”

    WHEN “HE” PROVIDES HIS: REAL, “AUTHENTIC” – “CERTIFIED BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN” AND, AUTHORIZED AND ENDORSED, ORIGINAL “BIRTH” CERTIFICATE. REAL IN THE OPEN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE COURT!

    THEN IF THAT, PROVES HE IS “CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE” THEN I WILL LISTEN TO HIM. HOWEVER, UNTIL THEN? “HE” IS “IMPEACHABLE” FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS POSSIBLE TREASON ALONG WITH SPEAKER PALOSIE,
    FOR SIGNING TWO, SEPARATE; DOCUMENTS TO HIS ELIGIBILITY.

    ONE, WITH “THE CONSTITUTIONAL” “CAVEAT” AND “ONE” WITHOUT IT, IN ORDER TO; DEFRAUD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND USURP THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE: BY; DECEPTION, WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT AND COLLUSION WITH THE DNC, ACORN AND THE SEIU. IN OTHER WORDS SIR, IT IS OUR “OWN” U.S. GOVERNMENT.
    THAT IS THE ESSENCE, SIR. THESE, ARE THE GROUNDS FOR AND ARE THE ARTICLES FOR THE IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT OF THIS:
    “SITTING”, PRESIDENT, AND SPEAKER PALOSIE FOR “HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS” AGAINST: “THE CONSTITUTION” OF THE UNITED STATES AND,
    THE “AMERICAN PEOPLE”. I call your attention to the following;

    DEFINITIONS OF: 1. Enemy: a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against,Or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent. 2. CONSPIRACY: prob; lat conspirare; a planning and acting together secretly, Esp. for an unlawful or harmful purpose; such as murder or Treason. The plan agreed on; plot. The group taking part in such plan. A, combining or working together; the conspiracy of events. Conspire: Latin conspirare – to breath together, agree, unite. Latin <com together + spirare, to breath see spirit} To plan and act together secretly, Esp. in order to commit a crime. To combine or work together for any purpose or effect, to plant or plot. Conspirator: a Person who takes part in a conspiracy. Conspiratorial: of or characteristic of a conspirator or conspiracy. Conspiring or, fond of conspiracy.

    3.TREASON: expl: ref: Latin tradere, To Give or Deliver over or up to give:
    1. Betrayal of Trust or Faith: Treachery,
    2. Violation of the Allegiance owed to one’s sovereign
    or State:
    Betrayal of One’s Own country, Specific. In The U.S.
    (as Declared in the Constitution), consisting only in
    levying war against the U.S. Or in Giving Aid and
    Comfort to its Enemies.
    3. Treasonable: adj; Of Having the nature of,
    or involving treason: Traitorous. Treasonous,
    adj; traitorous.

    IT IS SAD TO HAVE TO SAY THIS, FOR THIS “ONCE” GREAT NATION. BUT, WITH, YOU’RE HELP SIR. FOR THE SUM OF ALL “HIS” FEARS! “WE THE PEOPLE”, WILL TAKE BACK OUR NATION FROM THE “USURPERS” OF OUR RIGHTS.

    THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS! IT IS THE FOUNDATION OF THIS COUNTRY.

    NOT HIS LAWYER, OR THE ACLU THAT HE HIDES BEHIND TO SHIELD HIM AND OBSTRUCTS JUSTICE FROM THE TRUTH AND RETRIBUTION, OF HIS ACTIONS.

    I Kerry Marvin do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic;
    That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,
    According to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, So help me God.
    (October 21st 1968), Chicago, Ill. USN Processing Center.

    Senator, Congressman,

    I implore you not to vote for any document that places the government of this country against it’s citizens.
    To do so, puts you in a position of antagonism with your constituency. It places you against the Constitution of the United States.

    Each man must examine himself and decide where he will or will not go. If I decide not to subject myself to this health care system,
    I will do so with the honest conviction that I am right in demanding my freedom and liberty.
    I will fight with all my power any attempt to do so.
    I will honor my oath. Many of my fellow soldiers, sailors, airman and marines have given their lives in respect for this oath. Many more will. Just like Major Hasan, and the Ft Hood Attack, Something Was Dreadfully Missed. What He Did was and Abomination He Was Not a Pre-PTSD, He Was a Terrorist. What Will He Face if “Not” Treason?

    We take this Oath Seriously. It is in Defense of Liberty and Freedom.

    I sincearly Hope and Pray Sir, You Do Too.

    Please Stand with “We The People” rather than Against Your Oath of Office and the United States of America and our Constitution and Bill of Rights Today!

  • bbstacker

    At the core, our Heritage has not been a prime component of government education, so the lessons of what we actually have as a Federal Republic are foreign to many of our Citizens. Young Americans truly have no concept of what incredibly unique, almost divine, Founding Fathers assembled together and created as The Constitution. The Christian faith is an intrinsic part of this as a whole, yet the Freedom and Liberty bestowed upon each of us by the Creator allow us to choose our faith without intervention or retribution as Citizens. If and until we as a collective nation of individuals figure out that we are solely responsible for ourselves, but together form this nation, then we are doomed to loose this great experiment to the ravages of time and the “soothing” words of an increasingly powerful elitist government that pretends to act on our behalf, but realistically bleeds us of our independence, freedom and liberties.

    • crisscross

      Sounds good. Unfortunately, after decades of uncontrolled borders, government indoctrination of our youth and the co-opting of our institutions and economy, and the emasculation of the Christian faith, etc., We the People have been marginalized and increasingly supplanted by an emerging majority foreign to our heritage and values. Their growing numbers, our apathy, ignorance and vain distractions, and our deluded and selfish leaders are leading us to a tipping point where We the People, the soul of America, will slip into permanent irrelevance. Without swift and dramatic action, this will certainly be our fate as America squanders its chance to be exceptional and takes its tragic place among the empires that always rise from the ashes of failed republics.

  • http://www.stanelaine.com Stan

    Jamie W. asks, “HOW do we take our nation back?”

    Here is the abbreviated version of HOW. Quote from Edwin Vieira.

    WE THE PEOPLE must combine their (our) economic resources and abilities with political and legal authority in large scale organizations that will reflect the POWER inherent in numbers.

    We need to convince the administrations of the larger and influential
    ‘Constitution’ based organizations to seriously consider this proposal if we are to reurn our nation back to sanity!

    The following is a partial list of some of those like-minded organizations drawn from my own research; 1)Liberty Council. 2)Constitution Party.3)Campaign for Liberty.4)FreedomWorks. 5)Continental Congress.6)FreedomForce International.7)Personal Liberty Digest. 8)August Review.9)Human Events.10)Fairtax.org ad infinitum. That is HOW! The next challenge is HOW do we implement this into reality?

  • Valverde

    How many have the wisdom to look behind the scenes to see what is going on? It is there. It is in the open and hidden in plain sight and that is the rub. One must discern. And the beginning of wisdom is discernment. One cannot take anything a political party representative says as truth and one who has wisdom seeks, first of all, truth. Nowadays relativism has become the truth for many. This cannot be for it denies the principle of noncontradiction. A principle that states: a thing (or idea) cannot exist in the same place nor in the same way, nor the same time as another (i.e., a thing either is or is not.) It cannot be both. To discern is to find truth. Our minds are not as DesCartes would have them be. Truth does not exist in the mind, but in the thing, i.e., reality. We have heard the saying, “Follow the money,” and there is much truth in that because evil men seek wealth and power, so to “follow the money” will lead us, ultimately, to the evil that seeks to grab us. So, seek wisdom, above all. She will never lead us astray, but we will have to forgo that which is likable in many cases. Follow the wisdom, not the money.

  • Kerry Marvin

    Dear Senator Alexander, Senator Corker,

    THE “GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE” OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONGRESS TO FORCE US TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE?

    Defending The Constitution From It’s Domestic Enemies.

    By Publius Huldah

    CNSNews.com recently posted an article, “Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance”. In the article, Steny Hoyer (Democrat House Majority Leader) said Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase health insurance, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare”.

    Oh my! Does Steny Hoyer not know that his view was thoroughly examined and soundly rejected by our Founders?

    The Truth is that Congress is NOT authorized to pass laws just because a majority in Congress say the laws promote the “general welfare”! As shown below, James Madison, Father of The Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton, author of most of The Federalist Papers, expressly said The Constitution does not give a general grant of legislative authority to Congress! Rather, ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only. If a power isn’t specifically granted to Congress in The Constitution, Congress doesn’t have the power. It really is that easy – and our beloved Madison and Hamilton prove it.

    1. Let us look at the so-called “general welfare” clause: Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, says:

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…

    Immediately thereafter, follows an enumeration of some 15 specific powers which are delegated to Congress. If you will spend 20 minutes carefully reading through the entire Constitution and highlighting the powers delegated to Congress, you will find (depending upon how you count) that only some 21 specific powers were delegated to Congress. This is what is meant when it is said that ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers!

    2. But Steny Hoyer and his gang of statists claim that the “general welfare” clause is a blank check which gives them power to pass any law they want which they say promotes the “general welfare”. Further, they claim the power to FORCE their view of such on us.

    3. Let us analyze this. Since words change meaning throughout time [200 years ago, "nice" meant "precise"], we must learn what the word, “welfare”, meant when the Constitution was ratified. “Welfare”, as used in Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 1, meant:

    Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil govern-ment (Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828).

    But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: “Public relief – on welfare. Dependent on public relief”. Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when 20th century meanings are substituted for original meanings? Or when the words of The Constitution are treated as if they have no meaning at all except that which the statists assign to them?

    4. Both Madison and Hamilton squarely addressed and expressly rejected the notion that the “general welfare” clause constitutes a general grant of power to Congress. In Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras), Madison denounced as an “absurd” “misconstruction” the notion that

    …the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare….

    In refuting this “misconstruction”, Madison pointed out that the first paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8 employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. Madison also said:

    …Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity…

    Madison was emphatic: He said it was “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; and to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” to provide for “the common defense and general welfare”, is “an absurdity”.

    In Federalist No. 83 (7th para), Hamilton said:

    …The plan of the [constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended… [italics added]

    5. So! It is clear from Madison and Hamilton that The Constitution does not bestow any general or unlimited grant of legislative power to Congress! And what else did Madison and Hamilton say about the “enumerated” powers of the federal government? In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), Madison said:

    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. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people….[emphasis added]

    Madison said it again in Federalist No. 39 (3rd para from end):

    …the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects….” [emphasis added]

    In Federalist No. 14 (8th para), Madison said:

    … the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects…[emphasis added]

    In Federalist No. 27 (last para), Hamilton said:

    …It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…[caps in original]

    6. Now, let’s look at the 10th Amendment:

    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.

    Now, we can understand the true meaning of the “general welfare” clause: OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD that the “general Welfare”, i.e., the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society and civil government, was possible only with a civil government which was strictly limited and restricted in what it was given power to do!

    7. So! How did we get to the point where the federal government claims the power to regulate every aspect of our lives, including forcing us to buy health insurance? Consider Prohibition: During 1919, everyone understood that the Constitution did not give Congress authority to simply “pass a law” banning alcoholic beverages! So the Constitution was amended to prohibit alcoholic beverages, and to authorize Congress to make laws to enforce the prohibition (18th Amdt.).

    But with Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), the federal government abandoned our Constitution: FDR proposed “New Deal” schemes; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court opined (generally 5 to 4) that “New Deal” programs were unconstitutional as outside the powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to “pack the court” by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving New Deal programs (generally 5 to 4).

    Since then, law schools don’t teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach Supreme Court opinions which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that the “general welfare” clause, along with the “interstate commerce” and the “necessary and proper” clauses, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!

    Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute nailed it in his recent post on Politico.com:

    Is it unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance or be taxed if they don’t? Absolutely – if we lived under the Constitution. But we don’t. Today we live under something called “constitutional law” – an accumulation of 220 years of Supreme Court opinions – and that “law” reflects the Constitution only occasionally.

    Now you see how the statists justify the totalitarian dictatorship they are attempting to foist upon the American People. The statists and the brainwashed products of our law schools go by U.S. Supreme Court opinions which reject Our Constitution! (But Publius Huldah goes by The Constitution as explained by The Federalist Papers).

    8. But is the Supreme Court the ultimate authority on the meaning of our Constitution? NO! Hamilton said the people are “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, and he called upon us to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (Federalist No.16, next to last para). Madison (or Hamilton) said that breaches of our Constitution can be corrected by “…the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission [The Constitution], can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance” (Federalist No. 49, 3rd Para).

    Now Senator I did the research, now please help me and do your part, do not let these liberals destroy the constitution.

    Senator, Congressman, look to the Department of Federal Elections, Commissions Law: Special Attention to Sentence 7. “Sufficient Information” is “Already Known” and “Reason to Believe”. See: Sentence 8. “Pre-Probable Cause”.

    1. See 2 U.S.C. §437g [PDF] and 11 CFR 111.
    2. Enforcement proceedings originate in other ways as well. For example, other federal agencies sometimes refer an enforcement matter to the Commission; and the Commission itself may initiate enforcement proceedings based on information gathered in the normal course of its supervisory functions, such as reviewing reports or conducting field audits.
    In addition, a matter may enter the enforcement process through a self-reporting or sua sponte letter, that is, a letter sent by an entity who violates the law and notifies the Commission of the facts of the violation. In some cases, filing sua sponte may serve as a mitigating circumstance when the Commission considers the matter depending upon a number of factors, such as whether the self-reporting was timely; whether the complaint was complete; whether other agencies (including the Reports Analysis Division and the Audit Division of the Federal Election Commission) are already investigating the facts surrounding the underlying violations; and the type of controls that were in place at the time of the violations and those controls that are to be implemented to avoid future violations.
    3. In April 2007, the FEC issued a Policy Statement regarding self-reporting of campaign finance violations.
    4. A complaint may allege several violations, in which case the Commission votes on each allegation separately.
    5. At any point during the complaint process, however, the Commission has the discretion to take no further action in a particular matter.
    6. In March 2007, the FEC issued a Policy Statement regarding Commission action in matters at the initial stage in the enforcement process to clarify the various actions the Commission may take when beginning the enforcement process.

    [ 7. In some cases, Where “Sufficient Information" is "Already Known” the Commission proposes a written conciliation agreement (see "Resolution of Complaint" section for description) to resolve the matter at the same time it notifies the respondent of the "Reason to Believe" finding. ]

    [ 8. In certain circumstances, the Commission will take the initiative to offer a written "Pre-Probable Cause" agreement to the respondent. ]

    9. Click here to view the procedural rule regarding Probable Cause Hearings.
    10. If several violations are alleged, the Commission votes on each one separately.
    11. See Advisory Opinions 1994-32 and 1995-1.

    Therefore, I Petition for the Immediate Impeachment proceedings be implemented forthwith and for cause;

    “Where Is this, in His Oath of Office to “Defend and Protect”
    the “Constitution” from “All” Enemies “Foreign Or Domestic?”

    It is Not only My Opinion, “No One” is Above the Law and the articles of the Constitution That Apply to his Eligibility, in that “He” Disregards his Sworn Word, And His Oath of Office!

    Represent U.S. Interests instead of a Political Party or Agenda Inimical to the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America!

    THANK YOU FOR STANDING WITH US RATHER THAN AGAINST THE U.S.

  • Don Rowberry

    From another, who watches Fox News’s Glenn Beck and Judge Andrew Napolitano daily from New Zealand down under, I would like to offer you some rational support to help save your nation from sliding into socialism worse than our mixed economy.

    There must be a better understanding about good and bad monopolies.

    There is nothing wrong with a private monopoly in any given field of production so long as anyone is free to challenge it with another product or service.

    An individual is the smallest FREE monopoly in the world, until he is coerced by another, against his will, or by an irrational government law.

    A COERCIVE monopoly is wrong because it relies on a special government priviledge, (an act of congressional law) to stay in business and gain an unfair advantage over other competitors.

    A graphic example is the Federal Reserve. It was by devious means written into law in 1913. As you know it is wreaking havoc on your economy, as it has done in the past, by printing paper money (not backed by gold in any way) to bail out business’s deemed by both Democrats and Republicans alike, ‘too big to fail.’

    Here is a brief and true analysis of what the Federal Reserve is, from a former chairman who, by accepting the position as chairman, betrayed your country’s economy and his morality as well. Destruction of the dollar could not happen without this coercive mechanism. The men behind the creation of the Fed. were socialists who did not then and do not now, like competitive free enterprise capitalism.

    Quote: “It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled and supported. Credit by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically,we remained on the gold standard;individuals were still free to own gold,and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold,credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks (“paper” reserves) could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.”

    -Alan Greenspan. From the chapter Gold and Economic Freedom, in Ayn Rand’s book -CAPITALISM:The Unknown Ideal. 1967.

  • John C. Davidson

    When dealing with the courts, I found common law always made the best defense while others sought to avoid commen sense.

  • Joseph A Stone

    If we truly want to put the Feds and state government back in the framework of the constitution then we need to exercise the greatest right our founding fathers gave to us. The jury vote, remember We are the rightful masters of both courts and congress not to overthrow rhe government but overthrow the men that pervert it.. They can’t control us if they can’t convict us!! We have the right to decide the facts of the law as well as the law! I personally believe with an educated jury system we the people would be liberated from the band of restraints.. Ask the judge I believe he understand this better than anyone. We need a grassroots movement to educate people on their right to nullify unjust and unconstitutional laws..

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.