By J.B. Williams
February 26, 2012
Due to the unconstitutional nature of today’s lawyers, lawmakers, judges, professors and politicians, it has become politically fashionable to proclaim ones constitutional credentials, even among folks who have clearly never read the document.
Many political pundits and politicians have tried to ideologically define what it is to be, or not to be, a constitutionalist, even when they can’t pass the test themselves.
This gives true constitutionalists a unique opportunity to set the record straight today, an opportunity that only exists when people are overtly operating outside of constitutional boundaries. Such a circumstance provides an easy five question test that may deliver more than exposing a lot of faux constitutionalists…
1. Is Barack Hussein Obama II a legitimate resident of the White House based on the
Article II Natural Born Citizen requirement for the offices of President and Vice President?
No, because a Natural Born Citizen of the United States must be the natural born offspring of a Father who was at the time of the child’s birth, a legal citizen of the United States and every member of the U.S. Supreme Court know it. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. Barack Hussein Obama’s natural father was at no time in his life, a legal citizen of the United States. He was at all times, a citizen of Kenya.
Get this one wrong and there is little chance of getting anything else right.
2. Which branch of the federal government was given the most power under the U.S. Constitution?
An argument could be made that Congress holds more power than the judicial or executive branches as congress alone has the power to make law, control the purse strings, override presidential vetoes and provide oversight over both other branches. But technically speaking, none of the three branches was given more powerful than the other; they were just assigned different duties. All three branches of the federal government were designed to be co-equal parts, each providing checks and balances upon the other. Each of the three branches has very limited distinct duties and powers to carry out those constitutionally assigned duties. Only the Legislative branch has the power to create laws. The Judicial branch has the power to interpret and enforce the laws created by congress. The Executive branch is the administrative branch with the most limited scope of duties. None of the three branches has more power than another. The Constitution did not form an Oval Office dictatorship, or a nine member oligarchy of unelected and unaccountable ideologues.
3. Is the final authority in America entrusted to the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, the Judicial branch, State government, Local government or the American people?
According to the U.S. Constitution, the American people are the final authority in the United States. Next to the American people, the government body closest to the people is the more powerful government authority. Local government has the most local power, followed by the State having authority over State issues and last, with the least amount of constitutional power over individual, local and state affairs, is the Federal Government, having authority over only those enumerated duties assigned to it by the people and their States via the U.S. Constitution. The federal government cannot “mandate” anything which is beyond the enumerated scope and powers of its constitutional authority.
4. Did States lose their sovereignty and Tenth Amendment rights during the Civil War, or at any other time in U.S. history?
Of course not, although I have heard numerous alleged “constitutionalist” or “legal authorities” make this silly claim in recent years. Actually, the Supreme Court has tended to uphold the Tenth Amendment far more after the Civil War than before. The U.S. Constitution created the Federal Government to operate at the pleasure of the people and the States. It gave the Federal Government very limited specific duties and the power to carry out those duties and only those duties. The entire Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment, remain just as much in force today as the day they were ratified. It is the right and power of the States to keep the Federal Government operating within constitutional bounds via the Tenth Amendment, without which, there is no constitution and no Federal Government.
5. Does the Federal Supremacy clause protect all possible federal actions?
No, it does not -- it only protects “constitutional” federal actions. "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."
Unconstitutional federal acts beyond the enumerated powers, duties, scope and authority granted the federal government by the States; enjoy no such supremacy over anyone or anything. For federal laws to enjoy the protections of the supremacy clause, they must be constitutionally sound laws. This means that the law must have been created by Congress, not a court or the Oval Office.
It must have been created by legitimate legislative process. It must not infringe upon any other constitutional clause or protection in the Bill of Rights; and it must enjoy the support of the majority of the states and the people of the United States in order to comply with the General Welfare clause, which prohibits the federal government from doing anything that is at odds with the general welfare of the States and the people at large. When a dispute arises concerning the balance of powers between a State and the Federal Government, the Constitution gives the U.S. Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear the arguments of the dispute. However, the American people have the final word on what is or is not “constitutional.”
Now, if one cannot answer all five of these questions correctly, they are NOT a “constitutionalist” and they cannot be relied upon as an authority on the Constitution or the law no matter the fancy paper on their wall.
However, there are two kinds of fake constitutionalists. The kind that cannot answer these five questions correctly, and the kind who can, but won’t take a stand to protect every clause in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as though each is the only clause that matters.
How did you score? Should you be leading American citizens, or should you sit down and shut up, allowing real constitutionalists to lead this country back to greatness?
Shouldn’t every individual seeking public office have to pass this test today? How many 2012 candidates can pass this test? I don’t take any candidate who can’t pass this simple fundamental test seriously, and in my opinion, a candidate who fails this test will fail to help our country too.
© 2012 JB Williams - All Rights Reserved
JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. He is also a Founder of Freedom Force USA and a staunch conservative actively engaged in returning the power to the right people in America.
Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org
Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org
I passed but your right none of th people runing for office or in office can now or ever have passsed it lately!!
Perhaps someone here clarify something for me.
The US Code http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002 states in para 15 of that page that "United States" means-- (a) A Federal Corporation and further declares in http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/9 that a citizens of the United States is a vessel of the United States Which might explain the Admiralty Courts existence.
What is not clear is the impact those lines in the US Code have on our Constitutionally defined freedoms. Any thinking person recognizes that for some time now, the Constitution is being attacked and then ignored by the political elite. Do you think those little publicized and less understood sections of the US Code supercede the Constitution? Are the political elite using rules that are on the books but never explained to We the People against us in another under the radar operation? If so what are our legal options?
Or am I completely missing the point of those sections of the US Code and they are only used in the corporate business world?
Any informed input would be deeply appreciated.
Here's another I cotchas...
Those elected have failed the oath they sware when appointed to office. We have no justice till this is rattified!
Patty, I CAN NOT BELIEVE you would have the nerve to say "the alarmist reaction from laypeople to NDAA is unfounded"!!! Legal and Judicial studies? Give me a break!! Law students haven't studied CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, since at least back in the 1940's. They study case law and procedures etc.
I don't claim to be a lawyer of ANY KIND. I'm one of those "laypeople", but I can read, write, research, study, reason, think, and come to conclusions!!! You know, the Constitution was written by men, who wrote it in a very easy to read manor. Where things have gotten more complicated, is all the "codes" etc that politicians write and try to pass off as being Constitutional!
I have NOT seen any postings on this or the many other sites I go to that the Patriots deserve to be talked down to, like I see you doing in the majority of post that you make.
As far as NDAA goes -- you just don't worry about it. There are those of us, though, that are working to have it NULLIFIED by our states, so you won't be locked up and detained indefinitely!!! You let us do that, while you write to Bill O"Reilly!
To the rest of you, I apologize. I know it's not my place to say anything about what anyone has written here, in the way that I have done in this post, but it angered me, cause I HAVE read NDAA, and DO NOT feel any of us who have been working for nullification ARE NOT ALARMIST!! And I don't like ANYONE seeming to look down their nose at the rest of us.
Patti, after looking at some of your comments, i noticed you also claimed not to be a Lawyer. So why would you point that out on someone else in a derogatory manner? You claim Twana is the one that is rude, but after the revue of several of those comments, you respond in an snide way that comes across as snarky and un-couth. That being said, I understand that it is up to interpretation of the reader to attempt to understand the manner in which the writer has put forth their response. It is usually best to assume the best of people when in this situation, so will assume it is a misinterpretation of you on my end.
I would look at this situation as a whole and think that maybe a little projection on your part, towards Twana, would lead me to believe otherwise. That you felt that way of her because it is what you have been doing.
First off, did you? I do not watch Bill O'Really, he is a joke. He is a commentator, like many of those on the news channels are now. He can state whatever opinion he wants and those that watch his show can respond to it. If you have a problem with his comments, post them here and your response to them. If others feel as you do, they can make their opinions heard also. If you and they want to make an effort to respond to him and explain the fallacies of his opinion point by point, then do so. That is part of us working together, we all do not do the same things, but we work together to get much accomplished.
As for the first part of your response, it comes off as a bit snide. If you are insinuating something in your comment, please feel free to come out and say it openly. There are many people here working diligently in their own respect, each doing as they are able to do and in the capacity that they can. To come across as insulting to what anyone has done, does not help in any way. It can, on the other hand, hinder those from doing more.
Patty, I don't watch Bill O'Reilly. All he does is expose his opinions, as do all the others on TV anymore. Once upon a time, News was just that. News, no personal opinions, no commentary, just reporting the FACTS!!! I really don't care what Bill O"Reilly says, cause he is NOT going to change his opinion, nor admit he stated anything wrong. Now that is just MY OPINION!!! We all have one.
It's insulting though, that you insinuate that we, here, do nothing. We don't all do the same things, for if we did, not much would get done. We all have our priorities.
JB has put forth an article that is great for all to pass around. We have all ran into those that claim to be on the side of the Constitution and wanting to Restore America, but once the dialogue starts it seems they are a bit lacking in some areas. We all need to keep educating ourselves and working to educate those around us. There is some that have some terrific information out there and they might know it by heart, but they only know a part. Some of what they push, like Common Law Courts are a sham, while some of the things like Committees of Safety are a part of our history that many still need to learn. Working together is something we must do. If their is someone you do not care to work with but another can, and you can work with that person, then do so. As long as it is a concerted effort by those on the right to do what we must.
The Thanks go to you Sir. You do diligent work that should be appreciated for the time and effort you put in to help us all.
Anyone who runs for office should have to answer these questions.
Yes -- answer them and LIVE by them!!!