The Battle of Athens, Tennessee 1946 Restored the Rule of Law by using The Second Amendment.


The Battle of Athens

1-2 AUGUST 1946

  • Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee:
  • wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our Constitutional order;
  • had repeatedly tried to get Federal or State election monitors;
  • used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers;
  • showed little malice to the defeated law-breakers;
  • restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows:

  • how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force;
  • why the Rule of Law requires unrestricted access to firearms;
  • how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of “law and order”.

GE DIGITAL CAMERA

I. Introduction: 

On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud — forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff’s deputies — by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans’ absolute refusal to knuckle-under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government. These Americans had a choice. Their state’s Constitution – Article 1, Section 26 – recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few “gun control” laws had been enacted.

II. The Setting 

These Americans were Tennesseeans of McMinn County, located between Chattanooga and Knoxville, in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah. McMinn Countians had long been independent political thinkers.

They also had long accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the Sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and gambling; financed the sheriff’s department from fines – usually for speeding or public drunkenness – which promoted false arrests;put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.

Tennessee State law barred voting fraud:

  • ballot boxes had to be shown to be empty before voting;
  • poll-watchers had to be allowed;
  • armed law enforcement officers were barred from polling places;
  • ballots had to be counted where any voter could watch.

III. The Circumstances

The Great Depression had ravaged McMinn County. Drought broke many farmers; workforces shrank. The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it proved.

Paul Cantrell was elected Sheriff in the 1936, 1938, and 1940 elections, but by slim margins. The Sheriff was the key County official. Cantrell was elected to the State Senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946, Paul Cantrell again sought the Sheriff’s office.

IV. World War II Ends; Paul Cantrell’s Troubles Begin

At end-1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County. Sheriff Mansfield’s deputies had brutalized many in McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for Mansfield’s doings. Early in 1946, some newly-returned ex-GIs decided:

  • to challenge Cantrell politically;
  • to offer an all ex-GI, non-partisan ticket;
  • to promise a fraud-free election.
  • In ads and speeches the GI candidates promised:
  • an honest ballot count;
  • reform of county government.

At a rally, a GI speaker said, “‘The principals that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county.'” (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p. 1).

At end-July 1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not responded to McMinn Countians’ complaints of election fraud in 1940, 1942, and 1944.

V. From Ballots to Bullets

The election was held on 1 August. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed “deputies”. GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African-American voter, was told by a Sheriff’s deputy, “‘Nigger, you can’t vote here today!!'”. Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted; the enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been “shot in the back”; he later recovered. (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens; Paidia Productions, Chattanooga TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot count “public”. A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. “The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, “his gun raised high …shouted: ‘You sons-of-bitches cross this street and I’ll kill you!'” (Byrum, p. 165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack, by the “people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history.” (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard Armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols, and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war’s end.

By eight p.m., a group of GIs and “local boys” headed for the jail to get the ballot boxes. They occupied high ground facing the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail’s defenders an easy way out.

VI. The Battle of Athens

Three GIs – alerting passersby to danger – were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire. Those inside the jail mainly used pistols; they also had a “tommy gun” (a .45 caliber Thompson sub-machine gun).

Firing subsided after 30 minutes: ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs’ rifle fire was un-coordinated. “From the hillside, fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply ‘shooting at the jail’.” (Byrum, p. 189).

Several who ventured into “no man’s land”, the street in front of the jail, were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff’s deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on 2 August, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs county threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail’s porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, almost having been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield’s deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned: the GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sun-up.

VII. The Aftermath: Restoring Democracy in McMinn County

In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for Sheriff, Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell’s 789. Other GI candidates won by similar margins.

The GIs did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On 2 August, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Athens; a dozen GIs were sent to police Etowah. In addition, “Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or guard groups, often led by a GI. …To their credit, however, there is not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf.” (Byrum, p. 220).

Once the GI candidates’ victory had been certified, they cleaned-up county government:

  • the jail was fixed;
  • newly-elected officials accepted a $5,000 pay limit;
  • Mansfield supporters who resigned, were replaced.

The general election on 5 November passed quietly. McMinn Countians, having restored the Rule of Law, returned to their daily lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an auto dealership in Etowah. “Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the years after the ‘Battle’ agree that he was not bitter about what had happened.” (Byrum, pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946, p. 8).

VIII. The Outsiders’ Response

The Battle of Athens made national headlines. Most outsiders’ reports had the errors usual in coverage of large-scale, night-time events. A New York Times editorialist on 3 August savaged the GIs, who:

“…quite obviously – though we hope erroneously – felt that there was no city, county, or State agency to whom they could turn for justice.

… “There is a warning for all of us in the occurrence…and above all a warning for the veterans of McMinn County, who also violated a fundamental principle of democracy when they arrogated to themselves the right of law enforcement for which they had no election mandate. Corruption, when and where it exists, demands reform, and even in the most corrupt and boss-ridden communities there are peaceful means by which reform can be achieved. But there is no substitute, in a democracy, for orderly process.” (NYT, 3 Aug 1946, p. 14.)

The editorialist did not see:

  • McMinn Countians’ many appeals for outside help;
  • some ruthless people only respect force;
  • that it was wrong to equate use of force by evil-doers (Cantrell and Mansfield) with the righteous (the GIs).

The New York Times:

  • never saw that Cantrell and Mansfield’s wholesale election fraud, enforced at gun-point, trampled the Rule of Law;
  • feared citizens’ restoring the Rule of Law by armed force.

Other outsiders, e.g., Time and Newsweek, agreed. (See Time, 12 August 1946, p. 20; Newsweek, 12 Aug 1946, p. 31 and 9 September 1946, p. 38).

The 79th Congress adjourned on 2 August 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings, Jr., from Tennessee decried:

  • McMinn County’s sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield;
  • the Justice Department’s repeated failures to help the McMinn Countians.

Jennings was delighted that “…at long last decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county of McMinn…”. (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p. A4870.)

IX. The Lessons of Athens

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee:

  • wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our Constitutional order;
  • had repeatedly tried to get Federal or State election monitors;
  • used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers;
  • showed little malice to the defeated law-breakers;
  • restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows:

  • how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force;
  • why the Rule of Law requires unrestricted access to firearms;
  • how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of “law and order”.

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the Rule of Law. However, Americans reject this idea. Criminals can exploit for selfish ends, the use armed force to restore the Rule of Law. But brutal political repression – as practiced by Cantrell and Mansfield – is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Since 1915, officials of seven governments “gone bad” have committed genocide, murdering at least 56 million persons, including millions of children. “Gun control” clears the way for genocide by giving governments “gone bad” far greater freedom to commit mass murder.

Law-abiding McMinn Countians won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by “gun control”. McMinn Countians showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the Rule of Law. We are all in their debt.

This is a bare bones summary of a major report in JPFO’s Firearms Sentinel (January 1995). To learn how the gutsy people of Athens, Tennessee did the Framers of the Constitution proud, send $3 to JPFO, 2872 South Wentworth Avenue; Milwaukee, WI 53207; and request the January 1995 Firearms Sentinel. This document is from: chiliast@ideasign.com (A.K. Pritchard)


Press reports on the Battle of Athens and Chronology — From contemporary sources.

X. Videos

Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

Volunteers Wanted. State Leaders Willing To Do What It Takes To Rescue Liberty For Your Great State. Join Citizen Initiatives Today! Be Part of History in the Making! Discover How We The People Will Countermand the Tyranny in 2017.


Friends, We are very close to losing the protections we have in the Constitution. There is a tyranny looming over our heads and only the Countermand Amendment can stop it peacefully. State legislat…

Source: Volunteers Wanted. State Leaders Willing To Do What It Takes To Rescue Liberty For Your Great State. Join Citizen Initiatives Today! Be Part of History in the Making! Discover How We The People Will Countermand the Tyranny in 2017.

Volunteers Wanted. State Leaders Willing To Do What It Takes To Rescue Liberty For Your Great State. Join Citizen Initiatives Today! Be Part of History in the Making! Discover How We The People Will Countermand the Tyranny in 2017.


Friends, We are very close to losing the protections we have in the Constitution. There is a tyranny looming over our heads and only the Countermand Amendment can stop it peacefully. State legislators alone are the final arbiters in all Constitutional matters, not the delegates they send to a Convention. It is past time for you to join us in your State to secure the 34 Article V Applications on Congress that are needed to convene the Countermand Amendment Convention and secure Ratification by 38.
We don’t need 8 to 10 different amendments because The Countermand is THAT POWERFUL. 8 short clauses and fewer than 400 words of pure inspired good Old Fashioned American Ingenuity that our Founding Fathers would be proud of.
The Countermand Amendment does not alter the Constitution in any way. It simply allows the States the proper authority to protect their sovereignty from Federal or other forms of encroachment. There is not much time left before we are all under a tyranny that forbids us from properly using Article V. Only the States can restore our Constitutional Republic with Article V.
The Countermand Amendment stands apart from and independent of all other Article V initiatives. We will cooperate with any of them if they do not surrender sovereignty and deliberative Legislature authority. We have one chance to get this right. We must not be duped by flawed claims by others who have assumed that an Article V Convention is a ConCon (or some modified form) and that delegates are equivalent to the delegates at the 1787 Convention. Article V delegates are Ambassadors of the Legislatures, not free agents. They are not charged with the awesome task of creating a new Constitutional document and government.
Our State Legislatures need the power of The Countermand NOW!
Don’t miss the video messages from Alaska and Pennsylvania State Legislators who are endorsing The Countermand in their Great States.

 

PA State Rep. Cris Dush on Using The Countermand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqBKIrSCFlQ

AK State Rep Shelley Hughes on The Countermand https://vimeo.com/160622372

LEARN HOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS CAN BE
COUNTER-MANDED AND RESCINDED:
1. Executive Orders
2. Court decisions
3. Budgets & Debt
4. Obamacare
5. Social Issues
6. Treaties
7. Laws Against 2nd Amendment
8. DHS, EPA, BLM, IRS, DOJ Regulations and more COUNTERMAND IT!!

ALASKA IS LEADING THE WAY! On Saturday April 16, 2016 Alaska made Constitutional history and it is going to change the course of our Constitutional Republic forever.  SUPPORT THE COUNTERMAND 2016 HJR14 and SJR15 are the Application for the Countermand Amendment Convention and HCR4 and SCR4 are the Delegate Resolution.

 

The Alaska House and Senate passed with overwhelming margins and with bi-partisan support (3 democrats and 1 independent) both the Article V Countermand Amendment ‘Application’ on Congress and the Delegate Resolution.  NON-PARTISAN!!

 

Together we WILL rein in The Federal Government safely, quickly and peacefully!! Will you introduce The Countermand Amendment Call on Congress to your Great State’s Legislature? Will you sponsor The Countermand Delegate Resoluton that safely defines and controls the Art 5 Amendment Convention and the delegates? We will need 51% to pass.

1) APPLICATION ON CONGRESS Single Issue Countermand Amendment Convention To assure that Congress will convene the Countermand Amendment Convention it is important that all Calling States have identical Titles and language in their Applications. For a PDF copy of the Application on Congress click this link: http://citizeninitiatives.org/Legislators/Art_5_Application.pdf

2) COUNTERMAND AMENDMENT To assure a safe, quick and successful Countermand Amendment Convention this text must be pre-approved by Calling States and included in the Delegate Resolution. For a PDF copy of the Countermand Amendment click:  http://citizeninitiatives.org/amendment_countermands/countermand_amendment.pdf

3) DELEGATE RESOLUTION COUNTERMAND AMENDMENT Delegates are Ambassadors of their State Legislatures, they are not free agents! To assure a safe, quick and successful Convention it is necessary that all Calling States have the same instructions to their delegates to the Convention. This will prevent possible violations of Article I, Section 10 prohibiting Interstate Agreements without the consent of Congress. The Governor has no Article V authority and does not have to sign this Resolution. For a PDF copy of the Delegate Resolution click this link:

http://citizeninitiatives.org/amendment_countermands/delegate_resolution_countermand_amendment.pdf

4) STEP BY STEP PROCEDURES FOR STATE LEGISLATORS AND CONCERNED CITIZENS  http://citizeninitiatives.org/Legislators/Step_by_Step_Instr_Alone_8-3-15.pdf

WHY THE COUNTERMAND AMENDMENT:

http://citizeninitiatives.org/Legislators/Why_CA_2.pdf

COMPARISON TABLE OF THE COUNTERMAND AMENDMENT VS. OTHER ARTICLE V GROUPS: http://citizeninitiatives.org/Media/Comparison-Table.pdf

26 states involved in the AMNESTY law suit.
26 States are angry about obamacare.
24 states challenging the EPA over coal.
27 States challenging Obama EPA water regulations AND the list goes on.
Why waste time and money in Federal Courts with no guaranty of a favorable outcome when 30 States can simply Countermand the issue entirely.  www.countermands.us
Please contact me with a convenient time for Citizen Initiatives to speak with you about The Article V Countermand Amendment Convention: Be a Leader for your Great State!
Regards, Kelli D Gordon serving as National Coordinator for
Citizen Initiatives Art 5 Countermand Amendment Convention
956-279-1604
Thank you for your time and have a blessed day.
countermand book cover sharper image 220x175
Find out how you can help! www.countermands.us

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: THE UNITED STATES BILL OF RIGHTS – FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION


THE BILL OF RIGHTS – FULL TEXT

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.

 

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, strongly influenced Madison.

One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.

Madison, then a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, went through the Constitution itself, making changes where he thought most appropriate. But several Representatives, led by Roger Sherman, objected that Congress had no authority to change the wording of the Constitution itself. Therefore, Madison’s changes were presented as a list of amendments that would follow Article VII.

The House approved 17 amendments. Of these 17, the Senate approved 12. Those 12 were sent to the states for approval in August of 1789. Of those 12, 10 were quickly approved (or, ratified). Virginia’s legislature became the last to ratify the amendments on December 15, 1791.

The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.

Other precursors to the Bill of Rights include English documents such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties.

https://www.aclu.org/united-states-bill-rights-first-10-amendments-constitution

BILL OF RIGHTS BEING SCRATCHED OUT

U.S. Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America (see explanation)



 

Declaration of Independence – Hear and Read the Full Text – Thomas Jefferson

declaration sacred honor

declaration of independence pic

Printer-Friendly Version

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription


IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Learn about Our National Treasure, interesting and informative facts about the Declaration and its history.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

CONSTITUTIONAL ACADEMY


Are you a current high school sophomore, junior, or senior interested in government, civics, public policy, journalism, history, or economics? We encourage you to apply for Constitutional Academy, our premier annual program that brings students together from across the country to Washington, D.C. to engage in deep discussions on critical issues, interact with scholars, policy makers, and thought leaders, visit places of historical significance, and much more! Scholarships available!

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/engage/

 

Globalists Continue To Push The Lie That Treaties Are Binding Upon The United States Citizens: Treaties Can Be Nullified By States Or Statutes & Obama Removed From Office!


Our Senate and President (not to mention that he is a usurper) lack lawful authority to enter into a treaty that conflicts with The Constitution so even signed and ratified it would not be a valid treaty.

Reblogged from Political Vel Craft dated July 2012

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution“.

The Second follow-up lie is this one: “A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”. HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution. 2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last, 3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth. “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading. The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’

“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…

“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See:Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article VI. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question! At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

“The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”

Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it. The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:

“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”

The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIESDO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED. Now we must let our elected “representatives” in Washington and the State legislatures know that we no longer believe the BIG LIE… we know that we are not bound by unconstitutional Treaties, Executive Orders, Presidential Directives, and other such treasonous acts.

[Note: the above information was taken from Aid & Abet Police Newsletter, with limited revision. P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, Arizona. Acknowledgment given to Claire Kelly, for her good assistance and in depth treaty research. The use of this information is not to be construed as endorsement of Aid & Abet Police Newsletter. Claire Kelly is a trusted and knowledgeable friend. – CDR]

__________________________________________

Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said on the right to renounce treaties:

“Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others”.

pg 317 – “The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” A. Koch & Wm. Peden, Random House 1944, renewed 1972. Jefferson also said in a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803, Ibid. pg 573

“Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.” ______________________________________________________________Further evidence:

Excerpt from a letter from U.S. Senator, Arlen Specter, (R. Penn.) to constituent, November 3, 1994.

“Dear Mr. Neely:”Thank you for contacting my office regarding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. … I have signed on as a cosponsor of Senator Bradley’s resolution [SR 70, which urges the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate for ratification] because I believe that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child is an appropriate step in the direction of promoting the well-being of children throughout the world. [he goes on to mention concerns that the treaty would subjugate familial and parental responsibility to an international entity, which he denies] “… Secondly, the Convention would not override the U.S. Constitution; rather, as in the case of any treaty, any provision that conflicts with our Constitution would be void in our country… “

[CDR Note: It is our belief that Arlen Specter would not have been as truthful regarding Constitutional Supremacy over treaties if he had a clue that this letter to a constituent would have found its way into the hands or eyes of the public.]

_________________________________________________

Logical deduction:      No law or treaty supersedes the Supreme Law of the Land.  ‘Supreme’… meaning ‘highest or greatest’.  What is higher than highest or greater than greatest, other than our Creator?  The Constitution acknowledges our God-given, unalienable rights, and secures those rights in that acknowledgement.         The Constitution gives the US Senate authority to ratify treaties with other nations. Americans have been propagandized into believing that those treaties become the supreme law of the land superseding the Constitution. Let’s examine this deception closely and dispel the myth once and for all. Article VI of the Constitution states:

Clause 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 [of any state] or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”Clause 3 – “The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executives and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several states, shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support this Constitution .”

Laws made in pursuance of this Constitution are laws which are made within the strict and limited confines of the Constitution itself. No federal, state, or international law, rule or bureaucratic regulation and no state constitution can supersede B or be repugnant to B this Constitution.

Treaties made under the authority of the United States… the United States (federal government) was authorized by and on behalf of the people and in pursuance of this Constitution to enter into certain treaties with other governments. The United States (federal government) obtains its authority solely from the Constitution. It would be ludicrous to think that it has the power to circumvent (via treaties) that which grants it its authority.

In Clause 3, it is made clear that every elected official, both federal and state, is bound by oath to support this Constitution. Who can rightly, and genuinely claim to be given the power to destroy that which they are elected and sworn to uphold?

The powers granted by the Constitution cannot sanely be construed to provide the authority to usurp, pre-empt or eradicate it.       The U.S. Supreme Court as cited above correctly ruled that the supremacy of the Constitution overrides treaties. It should be noted that if any Court, be it a State, Federal or the U.S. Supreme Court, should ever rule otherwise, the decision would be repugnant to the Constitution and the ruling would be null and void.

The answer to this question is self-evident.

The Constitution authorizes the United States to enter into treaties with other nations B the word Anation@ although not explicit, is certainly implied. The United Nations is an Organization – a Global Corporate Bureaucracy.The ‘experts’ in international law, commerce, banking, environment, etc.; and a cadre of alleged conservative / Christian-conservative leaders — lawyer, Dame of Malta, Phyllis Schlafly being a prime example — have been spewing forth propaganda to instill and further the myth of ‘treaty-supremacy’ for decades.

Their ‘expertise’ is an illusion created apparently with hopes to instill a sense of inferiority in the ‘common man’ (their term) so we will all defer to their superior intelligence. Let’s not go there. Here’s a perfect example of ‘expert’ propaganda on the supremacy question: On April 11, 1952, Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles (cfr), speaking before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky said…

“Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land…. Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, …can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”

Mr. Dulles is confused about the People’s rights. To repeat an earlier statement of fact: the Constitution doesn’t ‘give’ us rights. The Constitution acknowledges and secures our inherent, Creator-endowed rights. What Creator gives, no man can take away. The Dulles brothers worked (lied) long and hard to firmly establish the treaty-supremacy myth. And they realized it would have to be done by deceit — propaganda. Admittedly by propaganda.

“There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time – a long time – will be needed before world government is politically feasible… This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country…”

Allen W. Dulles (cfr) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.      The question of “nationhood” in reference to the United Nations seems to have been addressed by the errant Congress.  A quick fix apparently took place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation. That would be tantamount to recognizing General Motors as a sovereign nation. Are we beginning to get the picture? Case Closed Sweet Liberty

Second Important Article About The Treaty Myth.

Treaties do not override the Constitution.
By Don Fotheringham In anticipation that our president may sign one or more treaties that conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s limited grant of power, several voices of alarm are contending that a treaty can override, or in effect amend, our Constitution. Although that view has gained some currency, it is a myth that contradicts the intent of those who framed the Constitution. And it violates any reasonable interpretation of that document. Origin of the Myth The frightful idea that U.S. treaties with foreign nations supercede the Constitution has been regularly promoted since the Eisenhower era.
 divider gif
1 It was given a big boost in 1952 when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), made the following statement:
divider gif
2 … congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the states and give them to the Federal Government, or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights.
 divider gif
3 It would be hard to find a more preposterous assertion. Sadly, however, many citizens have been led to believe that treaties do override the Constitution. Could anyone really think our founding fathers spent four months in convention, limiting the size, power and scope of government, and then provided for their work to be destroyed by one lousy treaty?
 divider gif
But one might object, what about Article VI? Article VI establishes the supremacy of U.S. laws and treaties made within the bounds of the Constitution. It is called the Supremacy Clause, because it places federal laws and treaties that are made pursuant to the Constitution above state constitutions, laws. and treaties. Some Important History This was needed because, contrary to their agreement under the Articles of Confederation, certain states had violated their trust and entered into treaties with foreign powers.
 divider gif
During the convention,
Madison said: “Experience had evinced a constant tendency in the States to encroach on federal authority; to violate national Treaties, to infringe the rights and interests of each other.”
divider gif
4 State-made pacts often conflicted with peace and trade treaties wanted by the Confederation Congress for the benefit of all thirteen states, making it hard for Congress to consummate better agreements with other nations. This also led to fierce contention between the states in their effort to monopolize the import of goods from Europe and the Indian tribes. But more serious dangers arose in matters of security, for should one state be at war with a foreign power while a sister state honors its peace agreement with the same enemy, the security of the entire Confederation would be threatened.
divider gif
5 In an effort to head off such dangers, the Confederation Congress frequently attempted to nullify
state-made treaties in the state courts (there were no federal courts). But as might be expected, the state judges ruled inevitably in favor of their own states, pursuant to the state laws and constitutions.
divider gif
The 1787 Convention corrected that problem by making certain only federal treaties would be recognized as valid. In this light, it is not hard to understand why paragraph two of Article VI is worded as follows: 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. Upon ratification of the Constitution, the state treaties were nullified.
divider gif
Thereafter, only federal treaties were recognized as supreme, regardless of any remaining state provisions to the contrary. Moreover, under the new Constitution the founders established a Supreme Court, granting it original jurisdiction over treaty controversies, and thereby removing from state judges jurisdiction over treaty cases. In addition to quelling strife among the states, Article VI accomplished a major objective of the Convention, mainly that of placing the United States in a position to speak to the world with one voice.
 divider gif
United States treaties are created when proposed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The power of the President and the Senate, in their treaty-making capacity, was never intended to be a power greater than the Constitution. Citizens who met in the state ratifying conventions (1787 to 1790) to examine with great care the provisions of the proposed Constitution had a correct understanding of the Supremacy Clause.
divider gif
During the ratifying debates, James Madison answered questions regarding the new national charter and commented on the extent of the treaty-making power under Article VI: “I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of its delegation.”
 divider gif
6 In the same discussion
Madison said: “Here, the supremacy of a treaty is contrasted with the supremacy of the laws of the states. It cannot be otherwise supreme.” That is, a treaty cannot in any other manner or situation be supreme. Thomas Jefferson: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty- making to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
divider gif
But we do have a Constitution. Its life and viability depend entirely on the small number of citizens who 1) understand the document, and 2) who equally understand the forces at work to destroy it. At this point enough time has passed, and enough false teachings have been promulgated, to cause modern Americans to fall for the treaty power ploy. It is not surprising that John Foster Dulles, a ranking member of the CFR, should in 1952 circulate the treaty-power heresy that yet prevails.
divider gif
It is time for serious reflection on the words of Edmond Burke, “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Those who seek to preserve the sovereignty of the United States must work energetically to expose the Dulles delusion — the ridiculous idea that treaties have intrinsic powers greater than the Constitution.
 divider gif
1 In decades immediately prior to the Dulles speech, Supreme Court decisions had already begun to enunciate the idea (see, for example, Missouri v. Holland in 1920 and United States v. Pink in 1942).
 divider gif
2 Dulles actually made this statement during a speech in Louisville on April 2, 1952, shortly before Eisenhower appointed him Secretary of State.
 divider gif
3 Quoted by Frank E. Holman, Story of the Bricker Amendment, (New York Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., 1954), pp. 14, 15.
divider gif
4 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Farrand, Vol. I, p. 164.
 divider gif
5 Benjamin Franklin’s Plan of Union, America, Vol. 3, p. 47.
 divider gif
6 Debates on the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., second edition, Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott Company, 1907, Vol. III, p. 514. Robert Welch University
divider gif
Founding Fathers

divider gif

Related articles:

We used to be The United States.


Our State Legislatures need the power of The Countermand NOW!
LEARN HOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS CAN BE COUNTER-MANDED AND RESCINDED:
1. Executive Orders
2. Court decisions
3. Budgets & Debt
4. Obamacare
5. Social Issues
6. Laws Against 2nd Amendment
7. EPA, BLM, IRS, DOJ Regulations and more COUNTERMAND IT!!

JUST IMAGINE! 30 STATE LEGISLATURES CAN AGREE TO COUNTERMAND ANYTHING THEY DEEM HARMFUL TO THEIR STATE!!


We are alerting our State Legislatures and State Governors trying to share with them and show them this brilliant and peaceful remedy so that the States may regain respect and stop the neverending Federal Mandates passed down by bad court decisions, executive orders, unelected bureaucrats and federal agencies etc.

We have a viable and simple strategy and powerful remedy that is being overlooked. I pray you investigate further. Citizen Iniatives team has been working diligently to advance The Article V Countermand Amendment Convention.. Making very good progress thru State Legislatures and working to make sure all The State Governors also know about this effective and peaceful solution to stop federal government overreach so that your Great State may retain your rights and liberty.
Together we WILL rein in The Federal Government!

Will you sponsor and support The Countermand?

Thank you for taking the time to investigate The Art 5 Countermand. These are the 3 necessary documents that total 7 pages. At the bottom of this message I have left you a few extra goodies to help you figure out what we are trying to do… It is very simple and quite elegant. Our founders were GENIOUS!!!! Charles Kacprowicz has discovered the missing piece to the Article V Puzzle.

1) APPLICATION ON CONGRESS
Single Issue Countermand Amendment Convention
To assure that Congress will convene the Countermand Amendment Convention it is important that all Calling States have identical Titles and language in their Applications.
For a PDF copy of the Application on Congress click this link: http://citizeninitiatives.org/amendment_countermands/call_on_congress_countermand.pdf

2) COUNTERMAND AMENDMENT
To assure a safe, quick and successful Countermand Amendment Convention this text must be pre-approved by Calling States and included in the Delegate Resolution.
For a PDF copy of the Countermand Amendment click: http://citizeninitiatives.org/amendment_countermands/countermand_amendment.pdf

3) DELEGATE RESOLUTION COUNTERMAND AMENDMENT
Delegates are Ambassadors of their State Legislatures, they are not free agents! To assure a safe, quick and successful Convention it is necessary that all Calling States have the same instructions to their delegates to the Convention. This will prevent possible violations of Article I, Section 10 prohibiting Interstate Agreements without the consent of Congress. The Governor has no Article V authority and does not have to sign this Resolution.

For a PDF copy of the Delegate Resolution click this link: http://citizeninitiatives.org/amendment_countermands/delegate_resolution_countermand_amendment.pdf

THE ARTICLE V COUNTERMAND AMENDMENT CONVENTION: STEP BY STEP PROCEDURES FOR STATE LEGISLATORS AND CONCERNED CITIZENS http://citizeninitiatives.org/Legislators/Step_by_Step_Instr_8-3-15.pdf

Please print the links and discover for yourself the beauty and power of The Countermand Amendment and the genius of The Citizen Initiatives well-defined Article V strategy before you sign off on The Convention of States approach of giving them your authority in exchange for their promises of an orderly convention and effective remedy.

Thank you for your time, dedication and service,
From Kelli D Gordon serving as National Coordinator
for Citizen Initiatives under the direction of

Mr Charles Kacprowicz director@federalamendments.us
Charles can be reached at 828 783 0599
My contact info is:
Kelli D Gordon 956-279-1604
McAllen, TX 78504
articlev@mail.com
the.texas.tiger@mail.com
Schedule a conference call TODAY!! Together we can Rescue Liberty!
Visit the website at: http://countermands.us/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHY THE COUNTERMAND AMENDMENT: http://citizeninitiatives.org/Legislators/Why_CA_2.pdf

COMPARISON TABLE OF THE COUNTERMAND AMENDMENT VS. OTHER ARTICLE V GROUPS: http://citizeninitiatives.org/Media/Comparison-Table.pdf

countermand book cover sharper image 220x175.jpg

Please consider being a monthly sponsor for Charles Kacprowicz as he advances The Countermand thru State Legislatures across the country. Visit www.countermands.us … Thank you in advance.

 

Hey America! Check Out The Power of The Countermand Amendment!


Hey guess what!

I found out how to safely define and control the Article 5 Amendment Convention! Put on your thinking cap and join me with Citizen Initiatives and Charles Kacprowicz. Discover for yourself what Americans across this Great Nation are finding out! The power of The Countermand! We The People WILL reclaim America through our State Legislatures, bypassing The US Congress, Judicial and Executive Branches of Government. FIND OUT HOW YOU CAN HELP!!

This brilliant piece of legislation would make The Founding Fathers proud. Fewer than 400 words, this 8 clause stroke of genious was conceived through years of prayer and Constitutional study, Toss in a giant dose of love and dedication to The American Way of Life with a focus on Exceptionalism, God and Country. Fold in a heaping helping of common sense and logic and you have the remedy to an ailing Constitution and the means to Countermand a tyrannical federal government.

The Countermand will re-empower our Constitution and your Honorable State Legislators will have the perfect tool to rein in this bloated federal beast and bring it back down to size. No more federal land grabs, no more liberty kiling dangerous E.Os, no more Obamacare, no more Common Core, no more industry killing rules and regs. Your Great State will once again be able to use and benefit from your own states unique wealth of resources and much much more!! Countermand aps are practically unlimited!!

30 States will be able to Countermand any government law or mandate handed down to them past and present! When in the opinion of 30 or more states ANY ruling is considered to be detrimental to your Great State it will be automatically and immediately struck down. This will force the federal government to learn to partner with the states and think twice before trying to ‘shove’ any more bad legislation down our throats. The States will once again be able to take an active part in what direction they want  their state and this country to go.

The simplicity of the Citizen Initiatives Art 5 Strategy is unique and unparralleled and will literally save our collective American butts. Contact me or visit the web site to find out how you can help get this thru your State Legislature NOW!

UNCLE SAM SAYS ROLL UP AND FIGHT FOR YOUR CONSTITUTION

https://www.countermands.us/

https://www.countermands.us/countermand-amendment.html

https://www.countermands.us/countermand-delegate-resolution.html

https://www.countermands.us/countermand-application-on-congress.html 


A Very Simple Explanation of The Citizen Initiatives Article 5 Strategy Amendment Convention
https://kellidgordonlibertyblog.wordpress.com/…/a-very-simp…/
https://www.countermands.us/

countermand spelled right lol

The Power of The Countermand

Here’s Why the US Military is About to Turn On Obama Once and For All


With each passing day, opposition to President Obama within the military grows stronger and stronger, as men and women in uniform have grown sick and tired of serving a Commander-in-Chief that openly disrespects them, doesn’t have two brain cells to rub together when it comes to foreign policy, and can’t make a solid, firm decision to save his life.

gunny now what hit them with your purse lmao

While these are all good reasons for Obama to lose the respect of the military, the armed forces may turn on him completely for an entirely different reason: he’s a criminal.

gunny-obama kick start your skull

According to L. Todd Wood, a columnist for Western Journalism, many members of the US military are facing the tough decision of whether or not to follow Barack Obama as Commander-in-Chief, due to the fact he’s broken numerous laws and violated his oath of office. Wood cites the president’s abuse of power in using various agencies as a weapon to silence his political opposition and the Benghazi cover up as examples of his lawlessness. This creates a moral dilemma for service members, as Wood asks “For at the end of the day, how can you serve a criminal?”

Chances are, if Obama’s involvement in criminal matters like the IRS scandal or the Benghazi cover up can be proven, they won’t.

gunny giving bho hell

Obama is the most disgraceful man to ever sit in the White House, and he’s proven this to be true over and over again with each new scandal or gaffe that pops up on the scene. The US military are well aware that he’s a criminal, and most of them already have little to no respect for him. In fact, the president should be sitting in a jail cell, not out playing golf or attending fundraisers.

Source: http://conservativetribune.com/military-turn-on-obama/


 

http://newzvids.com/generals-constitutional-crisis-could-force-military-to-remove-obama/

According To Federal Law, Many Of Our Politicians Should Be In Prison For Aiding And Abetting Illegal Immigration July 4, 2014


Source …..

muzzy in wh vet SLEEPS IN the street

We truly live in a lawless nation.  According to federal law, it is illegal to encourage or induce illegal immigrants to enter the United States, and it is also illegal to either be engaged in or aiding and abetting the “domestic transportation” or “harboring” of illegal immigrants.  In other words, many of our top politicians and a whole host of federal officials should be going to prison.  The following comes directly from the Justice Department

*****

Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

Alien Smuggling — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing that a person is an alien, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien.

Domestic Transporting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.

Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

Bringing Aliens to the United States — Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. §  1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).

Unit of Prosecution — With regard to offenses defined in subsections 1324(a)(1)(A)(i)-(v), (alien smuggling, domestic transporting, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or conspiracy/aiding or abetting) each alien with respect to whom a violation occurs constitutes a unit of prosecution. Prior to enactment of the IIRIRA, the unit of prosecution for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) was each transaction, regardless of the number of aliens involved. However, the unit of prosecution is now based on each alien in respect to whom a violation occurs.

Knowledge — Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. §  1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew that the person brought to the United States was an alien. With regard to the other violations in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), proof of knowledge or reckless disregard of alienage is sufficient.

Penalties — The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. §  1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i) or (B)(ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses.


Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.

Recruitment and Employment of Illegal Aliens

It is unlawful to hire an alien, to recruit an alien, or to refer an alien for a fee, knowing the alien is unauthorized to work in the United States. It is equally unlawful to continue to employ an alien knowing that the alien is unauthorized to work. Employers may give preference in recruitment and hiring to a U.S. citizen over an alien with work authorization only where the U.S. citizen is equally or better qualified. It is unlawful to hire an individual for employment in the United States without complying with employment eligibility verification requirements. Requirements include examination of identity documents and completion of Form I-9 for every employee hired. Employers must retain all I-9s, and, with three days’ advance notice, the forms must be made available for inspection. Employment includes any service or labor performed for any type of remuneration within the United States, with the exception of sporadic domestic service by an individual in a private home. Day laborers or other casual workers engaged in any compensated activity (with the above exception) are employees for purposes of immigration law. An employer includes an agent or anyone acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the employer. For purposes of verfication of authorization to work, employer also means an independent contractor, or a contractor other than the person using the alien labor. The use of temporary or short-term contracts cannot be used to circumvent the employment authorization verification requirements. If employment is to be for less than the usual three days allowed for completing the I-9 Form requirement, the form must be completed immediately at the time of hire.

An employer has constructive knowledge that an employee is an illegal unauthorized worker if a reasonable person would infer it from the facts. Constructive knowledge constituting a violation of federal law has been found where (1) the I-9 employment eligibility form has not been properly completed, including supporting documentation, (2) the employer has learned from other individuals, media reports, or any source of information available to the employer that the alien is unauthorized to work, or (3) the employer acts with reckless disregard for the legal consequences of permitting a third party to provide or introduce an illegal alien into the employer’s work force. Knowledge cannot be inferred solely on the basis of an individual’s accent or foreign appearance.

Actual specific knowledge is not required. For example, a newspaper article stating that ballrooms depend on an illegal alien work force of dance hostesses was held by the courts to be a reasonable ground for suspicion that unlawful conduct had occurred.

IT IS ILLEGAL FOR NONPROFIT OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS to knowingly assist an employer to violate employment sanctions, REGARDLESS OF CLAIMS THAT THEIR CONVICTIONS REQUIRE THEM TO ASSIST ALIENS. Harboring or aiding illegal aliens is not protected by the First Amendment. It is a felony to establish a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of federal immigration law. Violators may be fined or imprisoned for up to five years.

Encouraging and Harboring Illegal Aliens

It is a violation of law for any person to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection in any place, including any building or means of transportation, any alien who is in the United States in violation of law. HARBORING MEANS ANY CONDUCT THAT TENDS TO SUBSTANTIALLY FACILITATE AN ALIEN TO REMAIN IN THE U.S. ILLEGALLY. The sheltering need not be clandestine, and harboring covers aliens arrested outdoors, as well as in a building. This provision includes harboring an alien who entered the U.S. legally but has since lost his legal status.

An employer can be convicted of the felony of harboring illegal aliens who are his employees if he takes actions in reckless disregard of their illegal status, such as ordering them to obtain false documents, altering records, obstructing INS inspections, or taking other actions that facilitate the alien’s illegal employment. Any person who within any 12-month period hires ten or more individuals with actual knowledge that they are illegal aliens or unauthorized workers is guilty of felony harboring. It is also a felony to encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in the U.S. knowing or recklessly disregarding the fact that the alien’s entry or residence is in violation of the law. This crime applies to any person, rather than just employers of illegal aliens. Courts have ruled that “encouraging” includes counseling illegal aliens to continue working in the U.S. or assisting them to complete applications with false statements or obvious errors. The fact that the alien is a refugee fleeing persecution is not a defense to this felony, since U.S. law and the UN Protocol on Refugees both require that a refugee must report to immigration authorities without delay upon entry to the U.S.

The penalty for felony harboring is a fine and imprisonment for up to five years. The penalty for felony alien smuggling is a fine and up to ten years’ imprisonment. Where the crime causes serious bodily injury or places the life of any person in jeopardy, the penalty is a fine and up to twenty years’ imprisonment. If the criminal smuggling or harboring results in the death of any person, the penalty can include life imprisonment. Convictions for aiding, abetting, or conspiracy to commit alien smuggling or harboring, carry the same penalties. Courts can impose consecutive prison sentences for each alien smuggled or harbored. A court may order a convicted smuggler to pay restitution if the alien smuggled qualifies as a victim under the Victim and Witness Protection Act. Conspiracy to commit crimes of sheltering, harboring, or employing illegal aliens is a separate federal offense punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or five years’ imprisonment.

Enforcement

A person or entity having knowledge of a violation or potential violation of employer sanctions provisions may submit a signed written complaint to the INS office with jurisdiction over the business or residence of the potential violator, whether an employer, employee, or agent. The complaint must include the names and addresses of both the complainant and the violator, and detailed factual allegations, including date, time, and place of the potential violation, and the specific conduct alleged to be a violation of employer sanctions. By regulation, the INS will only investigate third-party complaints that have a reasonable probability of validity. Designated INS officers and employees, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws, may make an arrest for violation of smuggling or harboring illegal aliens.

State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient. Immigration officers and police must have a valid warrant or valid employer’s consent to enter workplaces or residences. Any vehicle used to transport or harbor illegal aliens, or used as a substantial part of an activity that encourages illegal aliens to come to or reside in the U.S. may be seized by an immigration officer and is subject to forfeiture. The forfeiture power covers any conveyances used within the U.S.

RICO — Citizen Recourse

Private persons and entities may initiate civil suits to obtain injunctions and treble damages against enterprises that conspire to or actually violate federal alien smuggling, harboring, or document fraud statutes, under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO). The pattern of racketeering activity is defined as commission of two or more of the listed crimes. A RICO enterprise can be any individual legal entity, or a group of individuals who are not a legal entity but are associated in fact, AND CAN INCLUDE NONPROFIT ASSOCIATIONS.

Tax Crimes

Employers who aid or abet the preparation of false tax returns by failing to pay income or Social Security taxes for illegal alien employees, or who knowingly make payments using false names or Social Security numbers, are subject to IRS criminal and civil sanctions. U.S. nationals who have suffered intentional discrimination because of citizenship or national origin by an employer with more than three employees may file a complaint within 180 days of the discriminatory act with the Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, U.S. Department of Justice. In additon to the federal statutes summarized, state laws and local ordinances controlling fair labor practices, workers compensation, zoning, safe housing and rental property, nuisance, licensing, street vending, and solicitations by contractors may also apply to activities that involve illegal aliens.

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/AidAbetUnlawfulSec8USC1324.html