 |
| Wiki Commons |
Marti Oakley, Contributing Writer
Activist Post
H.J. Res. 62, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give states the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified by the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States.
Sounds like a great deal . . . right? Wrong! The states already have the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations. It is called nullification under the 10th Amendment.
Or, states can refuse to contract with the Federal government or any of its privately owned corporate agencies, thereby refusing the contract and any of its provisions (regulations or laws).
Secondary to this action, is the refusal to accept any Federal funding offered to implement what is usually a series of laws or regulations, (these being written by unelected bureaucrats, lobbyists and other interested stakeholders), meant to deprive you of your rights, intrude on your privacy, interfere with your right to engage in business and otherwise reduce and abrogate your constitutionally protected freedoms.
H.J. Res. 62, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give states the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified by the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States.
Sounds like a great deal . . . right? Wrong! The states already have the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations. It is called nullification under the 10th Amendment.
Or, states can refuse to contract with the Federal government or any of its privately owned corporate agencies, thereby refusing the contract and any of its provisions (regulations or laws).
Secondary to this action, is the refusal to accept any Federal funding offered to implement what is usually a series of laws or regulations, (these being written by unelected bureaucrats, lobbyists and other interested stakeholders), meant to deprive you of your rights, intrude on your privacy, interfere with your right to engage in business and otherwise reduce and abrogate your constitutionally protected freedoms.
Article 5
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.
Any amendments to the Constitution must be ratified by the legislatures of three/fourths of the states.
Congress, neither House nor Senate, has the authority to alter or amend anything in the Constitution in and of their respective bodies.
So what are they after?
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.
Any amendments to the Constitution must be ratified by the legislatures of three/fourths of the states.
Congress, neither House nor Senate, has the authority to alter or amend anything in the Constitution in and of their respective bodies.
So what are they after?
With numerous states voting to opt out of Obamacare, along with the huge number of states that refused to implement any provisions of REAL ID, and now the growing movement to squash the fake food safety bill which had nothing to do with food safety and everything to do with seizing control of the food production and supply and to force that supply into export, the Re-thug-licrats are looking for ways to nullify…nullification.
This resolution is intended to make it virtually impossible to reject non-positive code & title, such as Code 7 Agriculture. Agriculture is not in the enumerated powers of the Federal government. Title 7 exists only on paper and is not codified into public law as it is not within the Federal government’s power. It is not enforceable on the federal level.
If the Re-thug-licrats have their way, this proposed amendment would take away the right of individual states, in and of themselves, to determine that a federal law or regulation would be so detrimental, such an abrogation of Constitutional provisions and rights, that they will not comply with it. That would mean that according to the Article 5 amended, it would take three/fourths of the states to repeal, refuse or reject any federal intrusion into the individual states business. We would lose our independent states right, to nullify harmful and unlawful federal laws and regulations. We could, by sheer force of numbers, be forced to comply with federal laws as the chances of three/fourths of the states agreeing to nullify would be slim to none. Which is just the way the Re-thug-licrats want it.
Wanting to make sure I had not misinterpreted H.J. Res. 62, and its underlying traps and trickery, I allowed this little piece to be previewed by a person who is considered quite an authority on these issues. My source chooses to remain anonymous, which of course, I agreed to. After all, if Lame Street Media can cite anonymous sources, so can I.
Here are the observations of my anonymous source:
1. Nullification is different from repeal. In other words, at present, each state can refuse to comply (nullify), but they cannot repeal the law. In that sense, this proposal seems like a step forward.
2. Based on the wording, a constitutional convention would be called to propose the amendment, and that would be a huge step backward. In fact, the appeal of possibly giving the states the power to repeal federal laws could be bait to lure states-rights people into accepting a constitutional convention, thinking they are going to get what they want, only to discover the proceedings have been rigged so that they lose what little they now have. In a constitutional convention, the 10th Amendment could be repealed or, itself, amended.
Note* Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal government for imposing unlawful, unconstitutional mandates upon them and abrogation of states and individual rights. It only takes 38 states to convene a Constitutional Convention.
While many argue over 10th amendment rights of individual states to nullify, the fact is that any law (or regulation or US code or Federal codes, or whatever other “code” they come up with) which is contrary, arbitrary or in conflict with the enumerated powers of the Constitution, is null and void on its face, as if it had never been. All powers not enumerated for the Federal government are reserved to the states and the people respectively. And nothing in the Constitution says anything about the US citizenry being subjected to the secret and undecipherable codes of corporations known as US Code & Title, Federal code of regulations or any other contract laws and or legalese.
While many others maintain that the Supreme Court has final authority in these matters, this is true only if they act within the confines of the Constitution. Their job is only to compare the law to the Constitution and determine if the law meets Constitutional provisions. They have no other power or authority. Any decision rendered by SCOTUS, as many have been recently, which defy the Constitution, are an obvious abrogation and violation of rights and liberties and are therefore null and void. Having done so, SCOTUS has violated its own prescribed authority on numerous occasions, and has, in my opinion, rendered itself useless and without validation. This court has become such a threat to the individual liberties and rights of the individual citizen, that it should be disbanded.
Many people contend the only way for a state to reject Federal demands is to sue the Fed, and bring it to the Supreme Court. This is a fallacy. The fact that every state has its own legislature and law making body, is a clear indicator that the state has the right of self determination. Now, of course, with that statement there will be those who will jump to an extreme and envision all kinds of ludicrous scenarios in their attempts to determine that this isn’t so.
H.J. Res. 62 is not meant to protect the states rights. It is a piece of trickery. The resolution implies that we do not now have the right as independent states to reject federal encroachment. The key phrase is “when ratified by”. If this resolution was actually implemented as an amendment to the constitution, no state could sue the Federal government over laws such as Obamacare, or refuse independently to submit to federal encroachment.
We have the tools and the means now to defend ourselves from federal laws and mandates that abridge our rights, interfere with states rights, and that attack our freedom under various schemes meant to deceive us while forcing us into subjective compliance with a growing police state.
What we are lacking is elected officials who actually do honor and uphold the Constitution. If we are going to amend the Constitution, let’s put something to this effect into force:
Citizens Amendment:
Marti Oakley is a political activist and former op-ed columnist for the St Cloud Times in Minnesota. She was a member of the Times Writer’s Group until she resigned in September of 07. She is neither Democrat nor Republican, since neither party is representative of the American people. She says what she thinks, means what she says, and is known for being outspoken. She is hopeful that the American public will wake up to what is happening to our beloved country . . . little of it is left. Her website is The PPJ Gazette
This resolution is intended to make it virtually impossible to reject non-positive code & title, such as Code 7 Agriculture. Agriculture is not in the enumerated powers of the Federal government. Title 7 exists only on paper and is not codified into public law as it is not within the Federal government’s power. It is not enforceable on the federal level.
If the Re-thug-licrats have their way, this proposed amendment would take away the right of individual states, in and of themselves, to determine that a federal law or regulation would be so detrimental, such an abrogation of Constitutional provisions and rights, that they will not comply with it. That would mean that according to the Article 5 amended, it would take three/fourths of the states to repeal, refuse or reject any federal intrusion into the individual states business. We would lose our independent states right, to nullify harmful and unlawful federal laws and regulations. We could, by sheer force of numbers, be forced to comply with federal laws as the chances of three/fourths of the states agreeing to nullify would be slim to none. Which is just the way the Re-thug-licrats want it.
Wanting to make sure I had not misinterpreted H.J. Res. 62, and its underlying traps and trickery, I allowed this little piece to be previewed by a person who is considered quite an authority on these issues. My source chooses to remain anonymous, which of course, I agreed to. After all, if Lame Street Media can cite anonymous sources, so can I.
Here are the observations of my anonymous source:
1. Nullification is different from repeal. In other words, at present, each state can refuse to comply (nullify), but they cannot repeal the law. In that sense, this proposal seems like a step forward.
2. Based on the wording, a constitutional convention would be called to propose the amendment, and that would be a huge step backward. In fact, the appeal of possibly giving the states the power to repeal federal laws could be bait to lure states-rights people into accepting a constitutional convention, thinking they are going to get what they want, only to discover the proceedings have been rigged so that they lose what little they now have. In a constitutional convention, the 10th Amendment could be repealed or, itself, amended.
Note* Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal government for imposing unlawful, unconstitutional mandates upon them and abrogation of states and individual rights. It only takes 38 states to convene a Constitutional Convention.
While many argue over 10th amendment rights of individual states to nullify, the fact is that any law (or regulation or US code or Federal codes, or whatever other “code” they come up with) which is contrary, arbitrary or in conflict with the enumerated powers of the Constitution, is null and void on its face, as if it had never been. All powers not enumerated for the Federal government are reserved to the states and the people respectively. And nothing in the Constitution says anything about the US citizenry being subjected to the secret and undecipherable codes of corporations known as US Code & Title, Federal code of regulations or any other contract laws and or legalese.
Many people contend the only way for a state to reject Federal demands is to sue the Fed, and bring it to the Supreme Court. This is a fallacy. The fact that every state has its own legislature and law making body, is a clear indicator that the state has the right of self determination. Now, of course, with that statement there will be those who will jump to an extreme and envision all kinds of ludicrous scenarios in their attempts to determine that this isn’t so.
H.J. Res. 62 is not meant to protect the states rights. It is a piece of trickery. The resolution implies that we do not now have the right as independent states to reject federal encroachment. The key phrase is “when ratified by”. If this resolution was actually implemented as an amendment to the constitution, no state could sue the Federal government over laws such as Obamacare, or refuse independently to submit to federal encroachment.
We have the tools and the means now to defend ourselves from federal laws and mandates that abridge our rights, interfere with states rights, and that attack our freedom under various schemes meant to deceive us while forcing us into subjective compliance with a growing police state.
What we are lacking is elected officials who actually do honor and uphold the Constitution. If we are going to amend the Constitution, let’s put something to this effect into force:
Citizens Amendment:
Any politician, political appointee, bureaucrat, czar, black-robed god, or other stakeholder in the corporation known as The United States a.k.a., The United States of America, who with malice and forethought, who with the intent to profit at the expense of the people, who openly or deceptively operates as an foreign lobbyist for foreign interests, who contracts against the freedom and independence of 'we the people', who acts or votes to abrogate the rights of 'we the people, will be immediately seized, jailed and held for high crimes against the people of the fifty (50) independent yet, united, states.Oh! Wait! That’s all in the Constitution as well, isn’t it? See! We have the tools we need. We just need to get to work.
Marti Oakley is a political activist and former op-ed columnist for the St Cloud Times in Minnesota. She was a member of the Times Writer’s Group until she resigned in September of 07. She is neither Democrat nor Republican, since neither party is representative of the American people. She says what she thinks, means what she says, and is known for being outspoken. She is hopeful that the American public will wake up to what is happening to our beloved country . . . little of it is left. Her website is The PPJ Gazette
