When the IRS targeted an Ohio woman’s Tea Party organization and asked her to send the agency the books the group read in 2010, she sent the IRS a copy of the Constitution.
Marion Bower said that the IRS targeted her organization in 2010, and it took “nearly two years for the Internal Revenue Service to approve her request for tax-exempt status.”
“I was trying to be very cordial, but they wanted copies of unbelievable things,” she told ABC News. “They wanted to know what materials we had discussed at any of our book studies.”
She said she sent the IRS a paperback copy of the Constitution when asked the agency asked for books and other reading materials.
The 68-year-old Ohio woman founded American Patriots against Government Excess (PAGE) in 2010, and her group “consisted of volunteers who routinely passed out copies of the constitution at parades, and had informational meetings on anything from the health care law to disaster preparedness.”
“They wanted copies of our blog. They said they had already taken copies of our website. They wanted a list of all of our officers, what we do at our meeting, how our board is made up,” Bower said.
On Friday, the IRS apologized for targeting groups–like Bower’s–that had “Tea Party” or “Patriots” in their names during the 2012 elections. Subsequent reports have indicated the IRS targeted Tea Party and conservative groups since 2010.
- Tea Party Group Sent IRS Copy of Constitution When Asked for Reading Materials (breitbart.com)
- IRS Demanded Tea Party Group’s Reading List. Their Response is an Instant Classic. (pjmedia.com)
- ‘They were asking for a U-Haul truck’s worth of information’… (politico.com)
- IRS Inquiries Crossed The Line, Tea Party Groups Say (npr.org)
- Revealed: See the Letter the IRS Sent to One Local Tea Party and the Detailed Demands It Made (theblaze.com)
A-Hole Bloomberg: Who wants to take away your right to have a 32oz soda. Now wants to change our Constitution too!
Mayor Bloomberg: Interpretation of U.S. Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ Following Boston Bombings
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg believes that the Boston Marathon bombings have created a unique scenario — one in which traditional interpretations of the U.S. Constitution must change. Rather than shying away from cameras and other security mechanisms that some view as infringements upon individual privacy, the politician claims that the most recent attack calls for a new paradigm.
As for those who fear government intrusion and express serious concerns about how these technologies and other policies could impede privacy, Bloomberg is sympathetic — but only to a point..
Following Alabama’s lead, lawmakers in the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to approve popular legislation protecting private-property rights and banning a controversial United Nations “sustainable development” scheme known as Agenda 21, which critics say represents a serious threat to American values and liberty. If approved by the Senate as expected, the law would also prohibit state and local governments from working with the UN or its affiliates to implement any sort of “international law” that violates the U.S. or Oklahoma constitutions.
The bill, H.B. 1412, was passed in the state House last week on a bipartisan vote, with a Republican-led coalition of 67 supporting the legislation against 17 Democrats who opposed the measure. It originally passed out of the States’ Rights Committee in late February and is now in the state Senate, where a broad coalition of activists — supporters of national sovereignty, private property, the Constitution, individual liberty, Tea Party groups, and more — is working to ensure its passage.
Of course, Oklahoma is just the latest state to take action against the highly controversial UN plan, which calls for a transformation of human civilization under the guise of promoting so-called “sustainability.” In May of last year, Alabama became the first state to officially ban UN Agenda 21 after a law to protect private property and due process rights was signed by Gov. Robert Bentley. The wildly popular bi-partisan legislation was approved unanimously in both houses of the state legislature.
Before that, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Tennessee adopted a resolution blasting the dubious UN agenda as a radical “socialist” plot at odds with individual liberty, private-property rights, and the U.S. Constitution. Lawmakers in Kansas followed suit. Numerous other state governments, under heavy pressure from activists across the political spectrum, are also working to ban the “sustainable development” scheme in their jurisdictions. City and county governments, meanwhile, are taking action to protect residents, too.
In Oklahoma, lawmakers said legislation was needed to defend citizens and their rights from the UN scheme as well. Despite having never been ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by the Constitution, supporters of the bill explained, officials at all levels — especially the federal executive branch, mostly using unconstitutional “grants” and decrees — have been quietly working to implement the controversial 1992 international agreement across America.
“House Bill 1412 is a short little bill, barely two pages long; it deals with a big topic though, protecting personal property rights,” noted Republican Rep. Sally Kern, who sponsored the legislation in the Oklahoma House.
- Oklahoma Bill Would Nullify Agenda 21 (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Alabama & Oklahoma Ban NWO Agenda 21 Banking Scheme: States At War With Their Over Taken Federal Corporation! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Oklahoma House Passes Obamacare Nullification Bill (godfatherpolitics.com)
Alaska House Passes 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, 31-5
Today, February 25th, Alaska’s Second Amendment Preservation Act, HB69, has passed the State House and will now move on to the Senate for concurrence.
On the 20th of February, HB69 was read during the House Judicial Committee meeting where it was then scheduled for a hearing that was held today. During that hearing meeting, the bill was read for a second reading where the committee unanimously consented to the bills adoption. It was then considered by the full house. The vote was 31-5.
HB69 states, in part: “A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is possessed in this state or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce as those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.” [emphasis added]
The bill continues, “The authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition possessed in this state or made in this state from those materials. Firearm accessories that are imported into this state from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in this state.”
Will Montana Nullify Federal Gun Laws?
As sheriffs around the country get more and more media attention for making statements that they will not comply with or enforce federal gun control schemes, the Montana State house – and a number of others – is taking things a step further.
House Bill 302 was introduced last month by State Representative Krayton Kerns. If passed, it would be another line of defense for the right to keep and bear arms in the State of Montana. Instead of Montana residents having to rely on the goodness, courage, and constitutional understanding of their own local Sheriff – HB302 would make it state law that no state agent, agency or peace officer working in the state of Montana would be allowed to enforce such violations of the 2nd Amendment.
The bill states, in part:
A peace officer, state employee, or employee of any political subdivision is prohibited from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines and is also prohibited from participating in any federal enforcement action implementing a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines.
In Wyoming, recently, the state house passed a similar law prohibiting such federal bans. That bill also included criminal charges for federal agents who attempt to enforce the ban. Both bills play a big part in nullifying unconstitutional federal acts regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
Will Kentucky Nullify New Federal Gun Restrictions?
The Kentucky state Senate on Monday overwhelmingly passed a nullification bill (SB129) that would prohibit Kentucky from enforcing new federal gun control laws if they’re enacted.
What opponents are missing, however, is the fact that the federal government itself acknowledges that it has NO constitutional authority to force a state to enforce its laws. It often resorts to funding “bribes” to encourage compliance, but it cannot force it. This was upheld by the supreme court multiple times – most notably in the 1997 Printz case and in last Summer’s Obamacare ruling.
The is ZERO serious discussion that the federal government can require the state of Kentucky – or any other state – to enforce its laws.
Sen. Jared Carpenter, a Berea Republican, sponsored the bill. He said the Supremacy Clause applies only if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, which he said wouldn’t apply to stricter gun measures.
“If I thought the bill would be symbolic, I would’ve written a resolution,” Carpenter told the Associated Press. “I thought it needed more than that.”
The one-page bill deems unenforceable federal bans on gun ownership and registration. It specifically mentions semiautomatic firearms and their magazines.
The bill applies to federal laws as well as federal rules, regulations and orders.
Track all nullification legislation here:
- Will Kentucky Nullify New Federal Gun Restrictions? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Will Montana Nullify Federal Gun Laws? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Two Bills Would Nullify Federal Gun Laws and Regulations in Idaho (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws (godgutsandoldglory.wordpress.com)
- All Federal Gun Laws Are Unconstitutional (realnewsworldwide.com)
- 3 More States Propose Bills to Resist Federal Gun Control (secretsofthefed.com)
- 3 More States Propose Bills to Resist Federal Gun Control (activistpost.com)
Over the last few years there has been a growing concern about the President’s questionable expansion of executive powers. As a nation of laws, public officials are sworn to uphold the law . . . even laws you may not like. The way to deal with laws you do not like is to get Congress or whatever body passed it to change it. Real simple.
President Obama has, by executive order, circumvented national immigration law by ordering a halt to deportations of certain unlawful aliens, without getting the law changed. In July of 2012, President Obama changed long standing welfare policy to allow states to change mandated work requirements. Earlier he ordered the DOJ not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. None of these orders were submitted to Congress for review, which the Government Accountability Office concluded he should have done in part. I have co-sponsored bills to reverse these unconstitutional power grabs and will continue to fight them.
The President, touted by some as knowledgeable about our Constitution, acts as if he never heard of it sometimes. Now, the President and Vice-President are talking about enacting gun bans by executive order.
“The president is going go act,” Biden is quoted as saying. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet, but we’re compiling it all.”
For the moment put aside the fact that the Second Amendment protects the right of each person to own and posses firearms and the ammunition that goes with it. Our Supreme Court resolved that issue in Heller. Obviously neither the President nor Congress can enact laws that violate the Second Amendment, anymore than they can enact laws that violate the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment.
Let’s focus on the supposed authority of the President to simply enact laws by the stroke of his pen. Article I Section I of the Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress. All. None are given to the President or the Courts. All government acts need to be evaluated on whether they are consistent with our Constitution.
The executive branch has the Constitutional responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. It is well accepted that an executive order is not legislation nor can it be. An executive order is a directive that implements laws passed by Congress. The Constitution provides that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress. If we in Congress have not established the policy or authorization by law, the President can’t do it unilaterally.
MORE . . .
- Bring.It.On. (rivrdog.typepad.com)
- Executive Order a Law to be obeyed?…..lets see how that relates to any “gun control”……Pound Sand Obama! (therightofway.net)
- Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed? (12160.info)
- Gun Confiscation By Presidential Decree? (frontpagemag.com)
- American Firearms Owners: Your Rights Are Perpetually Protected!! (thedailysheeple.com)
- Assault on the Second Amendment (papundits.wordpress.com)
- Wyoming to Preserve the Second Amendment? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Krauthammer: ‘Unconstitutional’ gun confiscation ‘would cause insurrection in the country’ [VIDEO] (dailycaller.com)
- Use of executive action to change gun laws not unprecedented – Fox News (video.foxnews.com)
In a recent op-ed published in Jurist, St. John’s University School of Law student Christopher Elsee described a scenario he believes threatens the civil rights of his fellow citizens.
Imagine you have just written a check to an organization that sends mechanical engineering textbooks to students in Afghanistan or Iraq. Now further imagine that you have been engaged in this practice for well over a decade because you are interested in helping individuals in developing countries to improve their technical knowledge, with the hopes of enabling them to better themselves. Are you supporting terrorists? According to a proposed piece of legislation, you may very well be.
The legislation Elsee mentions is the Terrorist Expatriation Act. This bill, proposed in 2010 by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), would strip any American accused of terrorism of his citizenship. This would place the suspect outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution’s Article III courts and assign the trial on his alleged crimes to a military tribunal.
As Elsee explains:
The act adds offenses such as providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations, engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the US or any country engaged in hostilities alongside the US or providing direct operational support to the US. Another section of the act explains that “material support or resources” means, among other things as the list goes on, property, services, training, expert advice or assistance, communications equipment and facilities.
This illustrates why the person in Elsee’s hypothetical would face expatriation.
A central point of the act not specifically addressed in Elsee’s article is the provision specifying the burden of proof in a case brought under its authority.
Under the Terrorist Expatriation Act, anyone stripped of his citizenship could appeal his expatriation to a federal court, where the federal government would have to demonstrate by “a preponderance of the evidence” that the accused committed the offense with the purpose of relinquishing his citizenship.
An online legal dictionary defines this standard of proof as “just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true.” In the taxonomy of burdens of proof, preponderance of the evidence is much easier to prove than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” for example, which is defined by that same dictionary as “no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.”
MORE . . .
- Will Americans Be Stripped of Citizenship Based on Accusation? (dprogram.net)
- How Far Will American Congress Go to Crush Free Speech and Political Dissonance? (bonjupatten.wordpress.com)
- Will Americans Be Stripped of Citizenship Based on Accusation? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents (blacklistednews.com)
- Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents (tenthamendmentcenter.com)