Why is it illegal for communities to protect themselves from harm?

Why is it illegal for communities to protect themselves from harm?

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2014


The supposed answer to that question is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, Article 6, paragraph 2:

“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.”

By inference, the individual states declare their own supremacy when local communities try to nullify or avoid state statutes.

Keep in mind that the US Constitution enumerates powers granted to the federal government, and reserves all other powers for the states or the people. But this restraint has been trampled on so many times it’s barely visible under the tonnage of federal law and regulation.

Therefore, the Supremacy Clause becomes: “We, the federal government, can do anything we want to, and the states and the people are bound by it.”

So…what happens when the people of a community decide that a medical drug or pesticide (see also this) or genetically modified organism or fracking chemical or vaccine is poisonous and must be banned?

The state preempts the community, and if the state doesn’t, the federal government will move in and assert its ultimate authority.

Take the case of Roundup, or any of the pesticides that contain the toxic glyphosate. If the EPA or the USDA or the FDA decides glyphosate is harmless, and if their “science” is a sham, and if they are merely caving in to big corporations who want to sell it, the people would have no recourse.

“It’s the law, and you have to submit to liver and kidney damage at the very least.”

That’s the absurdity.

If health and life aren’t the basis of law, if they are ignored, if they are necessary sacrifices on the altar of federal or state control, then all bets are off.

For the past 25 years, I’ve been documenting exactly this: medical and scientific fraud that leads to great harm. This fraud is not only permitted, it’s embodied in federal and state regulations.

I frequently cite Dr. Barbara Starfield’s stunning review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

At the time, Starfield was a widely respected public health expert working at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

Her credentials and those of JAMA were impeccably mainstream.

She concluded that, every year, FDA-approved medical drugs killed 106,000 Americans. That adds up to over a million deaths per decade.

In the wake of her published review, and for the next nine years, as she told me in a 2009 interview, no one in the federal government approached her to help remedy this ongoing plague of destruction. Nor was she aware of any systematic remedial federal effort.

But you see, the FDA is a federal agency set up by federal law. It is tasked with approving all medical drugs as safe and effective before they are released for public use.

So if a local community decided, on its own, to ban a deadly medicine, its vote would be struck down from above.

“Suffer. Die. It’s the law.”

power outside the matrix

There are people who are happy to settle for choice. “As long as I’m free to refuse the medicine, I’m good. Let others take it if they want to.”

But we’re not talking about a choice between pears and oranges. We’re talking about poison.

And despite recalls, lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, and heavy fines, the killing continues.

Therefore, on the basis of self-protection, a community has the right to enact a ban.

Unless self-protection must surrender to the System. Then we are looking at lawless government pretending to be lawful.

These phrases come to mind:

“…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

“…in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

Making these goals come to fruition when communities are under toxic attack is impossible. Therefore, governments that support and enshrine such attacks are violating the very origin of laws.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

31 comments on “Why is it illegal for communities to protect themselves from harm?

    • Mary Macnab says:

      A reference to the true meaning of the last word “notwithstanding” (as per Noah Webster’s “American Dictionary of the English language” 1882) corrects the misinterpretation of the Supremacy Clause which the federal government claims as its meaning:

      “NOTWITHSTANDING, the participle of withstand, with ‘not’ prefixed, and signifying not opposing.”

  1. Dajaun Jones says:







    Global Witness is campaigning to know who owns and controls companies and other corporate vehicles, so that they can no longer be used anonymously against the public good. The campaign is fast-moving:

    The UK became the world’s first country to promise to put the names of the ultimate owners of companies into the public domain in 2013.

    The G8 leaders agreed to take some first steps to deal with this problem in 2013.

    The EU is currently discussing whether or not to require all European companies to have to reveal who’s behind them. The European Parliament is in favour of creating public registries of the ultimate owners of companies and trusts.

    Legislation has been proposed in the US that would increase transparency of companies. Read our press releases here and here.

    The UK’s Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories have committed to carrying out public consultations on company ownership transparency.

    The G20 will be considering this issue later in 2014 too.



  2. From Québec says:

    This is the phrase that comes to my mind:

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

  3. From Québec says:

    On a another angle, if the Military will not overthrow such despotic Government, you can work on having small victories, attacking smaller companies, like Vani Hari aka the “Food Babe” did and is still doing.

    If you boycott small companies that uses toxic products, they will remove them to be able to survive. This is what the “Food Babe” did and is still doing with a lot of success.

    If small food companies start getting rid of toxic elements in their foods and pharmacists start banning medical toxic chemicals in their drugs, these BIG BAD Corporations will hurt so badly, that they might get back their sanity.

    See all the victories this single girl had:

    Start listening at 15:40

    Food Babe Attacked For Speaking The Truth

    • From Québec says:


      In other words: [politically speaking] Don’t try to blow off the hole building in one shot.
      Take one brick at a time and it will eventually crash.

      • REVEALER says:

        Of Course…The objective is the installation of centralized federal control over local police departments, effectively converting them into the national security force that Hussein Obama warned us he would create in his first campaign. What they plan to do with that force is anybody’s guess but we can be certain it will be used to advance their now socialist, soon-to-be communist agenda of global government.
        All of the unrest is being created in advance of the State of the union address, with the predetermined outcome of the DOJ review of law enforcement and their “reform recommendations” to come shortly thereafter.
        This is all being choreographed to further the takeover of America during Obama’s last two years, at a time when the voters have no control over him and he is emboldened to pursue his agenda as he chooses, the citizens be damned. None of this is random, nothing about it is accidental. All of it is planned.

        • Amaterasu Solar says:

          Let Us be clear… It is NOT Obama’s agenda. Obama is MKULTRAed; He is a puppet. He does what Those with the agenda want. It is about time We let go of the illusion that partisan POTUS views make a difference. All are puppets of the same power.

          Just saying.

          “Revolution in ideas, not blood.”


          “Did You give an oath and find it’s bait and switch? Well, there is no oath then, is there?”
          “ALL money systems promote the most psychopathic to the top of the money/power heap – THEY will do ANYTHING to get there.”
          “The love of money is the root of all evil; remove the soil in which the root grows…”
          “If the universe is made of mostly “dark” energy…can We use it to run Our cars?”
          “If You want peace, take the PROFIT out of war.”

    • Rastafari says:

      food babe wants to label GMOs.

      she has alot of big-media logos on her site.

      she petitions fake-food companies to stop with coloring, antibiotics, etc., and sometimes wants “no gmo” but that is not the top demand.

      as long as GMO dominates the scene, nothing else really matters. will I eat at chick fillet if they have removed coloring from their GMO-fed chicken? no.

      we who care about this critical issue want to stop the corporations.

      but as long as prussian-educated sheeple still eat and support GMO poison-nonfood, we are doomed. looks like the new world order knows this fact.

      NO GMO.

      boycott all of it…

      * their “grocery stores” where you can’t find a grocery cart full of real, uncontaminated food.

      * their “restaurants” where you can only get government-approved ingredients, no natural food allowed.

      * their “food products” which have no food at all in them.

      do you shop at wally world or similar? stop now. tell them you are boycotting and that you are joining others to boycott. then do it.

      I’ve been doing this for years, and although I promote this as a successful measure to take, I can’t say I’ve had much success with it.

      sadder than sad, is that most don’t seem to care. at all.

      /s/ Rastafari

  4. seamlessone says:

    Mob rule is the law of the land, not the Constitution. The big mobs rule the smaller mobs, that is the nature of Democracy. Until mob rule is replaced with something else, that will always be the nature of the beast. Federal representatives represent the greater/larger mob. The smaller mobs are irrelevant. The individual is irrelevant. Inalienable rights are not relevant to the mob. The mob(and/or its representatives) determines what rights are alienable and they can add laws to trump any others at any time. Mob rule trumps all.

    Thankfully the mob is slow, and dumb, blind, and easily outsmarted. The mob is highly predictable, and therefore its danger is quite limited.

  5. seamlessone says:

    “Therefore, governments that support and enshrine such attacks are violating the very origin of laws.” I would suggest that our current government is the natural outcome of “law”. Seems to me that the origin of “law” with regards to the founding fathers, was in its essence an attempt to protect the mob from itself. It was flawed from the beginning.

    Mature men don’t need laws, and the law can only restrain the mob for so long. The founding fathers who truly believed in “unalienable rights” or “natural rights” would have been better off starting their own civilization somewhere, rather than attempting to create a body of law to guide the hoards of immature imbeciles. The mob is not interested in unalienable rights. The mob needs a parent, who gives them rights and structure, and tells them what it means to pursue Liberty and to secure its blessing. The mob is only interested in the kind of freedom that exists under daddy and mommy’s wings.

  6. roberta4949 says:

    as long as food is properly labeled no need to ban it, people who dont want it wont buy it wont be long before they stop making it (hopfully not get gov to allow them to mislabel it on purpose) but gmo good or bad is still pretty much matter of who you ask. we dont want to make the same mistake gov seem to always make assume they speak for most people when in fact it is actually a minority that want something banned or required. I figure it is best to take scaremongers with a grain of salt until you get enough information (such as reading a good chemistry book is a great start, I tried to read a biochemistry book once will require a bit more effort for me to do so, very dry reading hard to understand sometimes) I say let people decide what they want using their wallets, and stop using government to force ones opinion on others remember it is usually a minority that seems to speak for the majority many times the majority are unware of actions being taken or are fine with the products being used. just require labeling.

    • And in your wisdom Roberta what shall that label be…a skull and cross bones, the usual label for a poison.
      Or shall we allow them place a label that states that the product contains a GMO when 90% of the population does not understand what that means…especially for life on planet earth.

      • roberta4949 says:

        the problem with bans is they fail to take in account that the information about why something is banned could be wrong. also dont forget it interferes with free will, if someone is ignorant of something there is plenty of information for them to read, I will give you an example, for me I was trying to increase my intake of whole grains for my carb sources instead of the stripped stuff so how do I know what I am getting? it is called reading, I got on the web and looked up defintions of whole grains what is considered a whole grain and how to read labels the problem with people today is they want to be led by the hand all the time, without using their head ot gain knowledge. wisdom keeps crying out in the streets so to speak but most ignore it because they dont want to be bothered with educating themselves. and frankly I do not like others making decisions for me using state power to force me to not have something i want or may not want, the choice should be mine should it not? if 90 percent do not understand why dont you campaige for increasing their knowledge? does a parent stop educating their children and lead them their whole lives what to pick do eat or not eat or where to go what life decisions to make and what career choices to make how to spend their money what to vote on? no you educate htem teach them how to find information, how to think for themselves and how to decide. where to go for information and how to weight costs/benefits. and then decide for themselves. will they always make the right choice that doens’t lead to a serious problem for them? no, but that is how you learn. you make your bed and you sleep in it, you dont sleep in it then complain no one else made the bed for you. you dont force your opinions on others through state force, because that opinion is usually developed by someone elses poltical agenda that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with gaining power or destroying competitors or some other agenda they have that we would refuse if it were plainly stated.

  7. Jill Hall says:

    The generalized answer to the question is that it’s “bad for business”, and so must not be allowed. We are living in a world where the decision-makers worship money, or (as they used to say) Mammon. But there is no indication that the neo-liberal cult of “growth” is anything other than a surrogate religion that demands worldwide subservience. Whom does it benefit? The “priest” class, as always. The supposed “trickledown” effect that got the Randian romantic Milton Friedman his Nobel Prize in economics (awarded solely, btw, by the Swedish National Bank) has not happened after 30 years, and the world is worse off than anyone can remember.

    Capitalism eventually eats itself. For a consumer society to exist, there needs to be a large middle class that can afford to buy products they don’t actually need, but would like to have. But corporations owned by blind shareholders/investors are only interested in increasing profits, which is now achieved by investing in automation and robotics rather than employing pesky salaried workers. Thus the buying force disappears, and the consumer society caves in.

  8. Mahalo again bro. always enjoy your intellect.

  9. enlitnd1 says:

    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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    What laws are the supreme law of the land?
    Those made in PURSUANCE of the Constitution. To pursue means to follow. That restricts legislation to those enumerated powers found within article1, section 8 of the Constitution.
    Which treaties shall be the supreme law of the land?
    Those treaties made under the authority of the united States.
    What is the authority of the united States?
    The enumerated powers found in article1, section 8 of the Constitution.

    • seamlessone says:

      Authority is irrelevant without force. Try to “enforce” the constitution and it quickly becomes clear that ‘enforcement force’ is lacking. When your unalienable rights are being trampled on, who are you going to call? The police? A lawyer? Your Senator? Sure. What agency is going to protect your unalienable rights? The very idea of unalienable rights is a joke nowadays, and most people are clueless as to what that phrase even means, ie to what it points.

      Unalienable rights(Natural Law) is the Supreme Law of the Land and it existed long before the Bill of Rights. Billions of years before! Its scope is far beyond the Bill of Rights. Frankly, Natural Law didn’t ever need the protection of the Founding Fathers to begin with, and still doesn’t to this day. People mistakenly equate a support for the Bill of Rights with a kind of support for our Unalienable Rights. Unalienable rights do not need the protection from a Bill of Rights, and as history has shown, the mob doesn’t care about Bills of Rights and when they have sufficient force to trample such Bills (without consequence) they will.

      • calusirius says:

        “When your unalienable rights are being trampled on, who are you going to call?”


        “WE…” are the militia of the several states. Those who serve within our governments were forbidden to create law enforcement – federal and state. They were required to use us, as the Militia which is why the congress can call us, as the trained Militia, out, and the president THEN becomes the Commander in Chief. Then if needed a military is formed, usually form the ranks of the Militia. It is why the Governor can call them out when needed for the state.

        Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

        Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

        Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”

        George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

        Samuel Adams: “Under every government the last resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes.  Whenever a people … entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.
        And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions”.

        Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”

        Even George Washington believed that we should have our own sources of military arms just in case.

        George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

  10. Defiant says:

    I sometimes…often…disagree with you…but today you’re RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

  11. Andrewjohn says:

    The US Constitution in and of itself is a sham and a snare and one’s belief in this phony document ultimately leads to damnation and I’ll explain why.

    There are two frames for instituting Law. By the Church and State or separate of the Church and State. The key question everyone has on their mind or should have on their mind is Church? Which Church then?? The Church founded by Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church of the One Great Faith! And that Faith is Catholicism….and headed by the Church at Rome, therefore Roman Catholicism.

    What people fail to realize and understand is that the movement of one heretical and demonic man known as Martin Luther failed miserably at his calling which he chose when he entered a German Monestary. Needless to say , Luther didn’t like it. So he pinned his 95 thesis to the door of the monastery on All Hallow’s Eve in 1517. All Hallow’s Eve is traditionally known as Halloween and it is the day before All Saint’s Day which is a Feast day in Roman Catholicism honoring the Saints who’ve been Canonized.

    Many expert Catholic Theologians agree that in 1517 Christendom began its gradual downward slid and the Apostacy age began. This was an epic notable mark within the Church Age which Jesus Christ Himself said that His Kingdom would reign for a 1000 years. It is understood that the Christiandom clock started when the Roman Empire was the first country in Europe to recognize Catholicism as a legal right and was granted total state protection. This was accomplished under Constatine in 330AD or there abouts. Before this however, Christendom made a strong impression on Europe when a little farm girl who became known as Jone of Arc lead her fellow Frence Countrymen against the wicked rebels of… guess who boys & girls??? That’s right children, Bloody England! When England was Catholic it was known as Mary ( Merry ) England. But with its bellicose attitude and complete disregard for human rights and equal privileges for those who sought the benefits of hard work, family, liberty, and property rights, English evil government was a complete opposite. The tyrants reap what people have sown unto themselves.

    In 1717 Heretic and Tyrant Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and was excommunicated because of an issue with his first wife whom he murdered because she couldn’t bear him a son. Prior, he sought a divorce which the church refused to grant him an annulment.

    So the Demonic church of England was formed by the head demon himself. At this point, all I will indicated is that England has been the world’s cancer and has been for a very long time. Even as far back as the 1200’s with England constantly picking fights with Scotland and Ireland. This country of murders and thieves i.e. England is what needs to be examined for centuries of human rights crimes and it’s no plainer that that.

    The lesson is that the United States Inc. is a clone of England and do keep in mind that it was England that created the movement for the criminal zionist state of Israelhel and thus the Bolshivik Revolution. It was England along with their Traitorus henchmen of Scotland who opposed Roman Catholicism and brought about the Illuminati i.e. the York and Scottish Rites of the Masons. Behind the scene were the Bloshivk jews of Russia. Keep in mind that the plan for the Russian revolt was hatched out of York! New York that is.

    The framers of the US Constitution and including george washington were nothing but a bunch of murdering marauders with a human rights crimes sheet that stretches for miles. They were not Christian of the Catholic sect so they were heretics. The form of government they brought to America was De Facto meaning by force and not justice. Compared to De Jure law which has as it’s Ministers people of Lord God’s will which Lord God Himself considered all his work good!

    Without the True Church restored in Holy union with the State you will have nothing but Zionist agony til the end of days. And by De Jure law it is up to every capable Man to make that restoration occur.

    • By Pope Francis estimation there are 8000 paedophile priests of a clergy of 414,000…
      what he failed to mention is how many cardinals and popes are/were paedophiles.
      The priesthood has always been a perfect hideout for these sick individuals.
      Personally I am not ready for that many paedophiles in government. But of course we have had megalomaniac, sadomasochism, psychopaths, liars, sodomites, xenophobes…might as well add pedophilia to the mix.


  12. calusirius says:

    First, it is the US Constitution AND ALL THAT IS “IN PURSUANCE THEREOF” it that is supreme, not the people who serve within the federal or state governments. Where it it does not conflict with the states or where it is not expressly stated within the US Constitution or in the state-that -you-are-located-in’s Constitution then it is up to the people themselves.

    More then that, the duties of those who serve within the federal government are separated into 3 branches, each with authority over different and listed things with very few LISTED where 2 branches share the authority – which is the only time they can share it.

    What our problem is today is that many federal agencies are under the executive branch, but are using the authority (powers) of the other two branches which is forbidden to them. The executive branch executes the laws made by those we put into office. Those legislators are NOT allowed to hand those decisions to any agencies assisting them. Nor can they pass their authority to another branch.

    Basically, none of those agencies have any legitimate authority for what they do. Why? Because they blend all three branches powers into one agency, usually under the executive branch. They create the law or regulation (legislative), they decide if you are guilty of breaking it (judicial duty with a jury of ones peers), and then they enforce it (executive branch). That breaks completely the separation of powers required by the US Constitution.

    As Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

    The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
    The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

    … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
    What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability…

    How do you define, or how would you characterize, a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress, or any other political body? It is by definition a totalitarian government…

    Well, Americans would have had to understand and enforce their Constitution. You notice I say Americans, not the Congress or the Supreme Court, because who is the final arbiter of this document? [holding a copy of the Constitution] It is not Congress, and it is not the Supreme Court. It is “we the people.” Read the thing. How does it start? “We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States”; not “we the politicians,” not “we the judges.” Those people are the agents of the people. We the people are the principals.
    The doctrine is very clear that, being the principals, we are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters and enforcers. You don’t have to take my word for it. Let’s go back to the Founding Fathers…
    The Founding Fathers were profound students of law and political philosophy, their knowledge unequaled by any today. Their mentor in that era was William Blackstone, who wrote Blackstone’s Commentaries, probably the most widely read legal treatise of its time, certainly here in the United States. What did Blackstone write about this subject? He wrote, “Whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself; there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.”
    We the people are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters. (Dr. Edwin Vieira, http://www.constitution.org/mon/vieira_03225.htm )

    James Madison : “Because if . . . [An Unalienable Natural Right of Free Men] . . . be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: It is limited with regard to the coordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires, not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained: but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the greater Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are Slaves”

    The answer is easy, know the US Constitution. Enforce it as the Militia of the several states since they are the ONLY constitutionally assigned force with the constitutionally assigned duties to:
    – Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    – Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    – Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    – “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

    Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    James Madison, Federalist 46, 315-23: “The Foederal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes… They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expence of the other. Truth no less than decency requires, that the event in every case, should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.”

    James Madison: “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.”

    Federalist 57, James Madison wrote that Congress “can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.”

    Madison, Federalist 39: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” 
    Alexander Hamilton: “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.” (It was established!)

    28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

  13. Considering that We have had, since 1871, a (foreign owned) corporation masquerading as :Our” governMENT (controlMIND), that has a corporate structure that reads mostly like the original constitution (but that the phrase “for the united states of America” was changed to “of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”), and without the Bill of Rights – from which We get the powers reserved to Us in the 10th amendment – We can see why this corporation does what it does with impunity. The original government stands vacant, and the Bill of Rights moot.

    Corporate “law” states that profit is the prime purpose of all corporations. Not the good of the People.

    A solution to this is to make corporations moot. And to set up governANCE that promotes the PRINCIPLES We are told this country stands for: Individual freedom, pursuit of happiness, and the ability for All to create as They choose within Ethics.

    My work is geared to that end and I share again, for the reader, the solution which will provide Us with true freedom while making all corporations moot:

    T.A.P. – You’re It!

    “Revolution in ideas, not blood.”


    “Did You give an oath and find it’s bait and switch? Well, there is no oath then, is there?”
    “ALL money systems promote the most psychopathic to the top of the money/power heap – THEY will do ANYTHING to get there.”
    “The love of money is the root of all evil; remove the soil in which the root grows…”
    “If the universe is made of mostly “dark” energy…can We use it to run Our cars?”
    “If You want peace, take the PROFIT out of war.”

    • calusirius says:

      “Considering that We have had, since 1871, a (foreign owned) corporation masquerading as Our governMENT (controlMIND),”

      Once again, that is our, our parents, and our grandparents fault since they did NOT do the duties assigned them by the US Constitution to ENFORCE it, to stay the Militia and train, to see to it we removed those who are corrupt from office, to not have removed all within the legislative branch that put the Federal Reserve in place and sold out our nation – then removed all those who served within the other two branches for allowing it. Then pressing treason charges on all involved or who stood by. Then going after those who set up the Federal Reserve in the plan to destroy the USA from within where ever they went on this planet.

      Those were their (immediate ancestors) and our duties, and it still is.

  14. Yes, Jon, the very “origin of laws” – the Source of our being, who founded the very principle of law and enunciated ten basic precepts that should underlie every humane and protective enactment. The government (national, corporate, or individual) which by proclamation or legislation violates those principles, is by nature in defiance of not only those immutable laws, but undermines its own sustainability and will ultimately self-destruct. The Eternal is above and beyond the impudence and insolence of mortal man, not only in power and intellect, but by virtue of patience and humility to extend the offering of repentance and redemption for all humankind to the designated higher state.

  15. buzorro says:

    The US Constitution Section 3 ‘The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years…’

    Our Founding Fathers intended for the US Senate, comprised of ‘state representatives,’ to protect states’ rights.

    Then again, ‘adultery’ is a grievous sin, like ‘usury’ used to be. Who cares? Right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *