The Myth and Dangers of State Nullification Exposed

A Critical Lesson in “State Nullification” for All of Us


The following presentation by RT2A General Counsel, Richard Fry of Kansas, is an attempt to help bring clarity to this important issue of State Nullification. Much is being said today about “Nullification” and the need for the States to step up and take this action. Many freedom-loving Americans think nullification is something we must compel our State legislators to do. Several patriot organizations are proposing “laws” to nullify federal laws that they believe undermine our liberty. While this may be noble in sincerity of intention, such attempts at “nullification” may not be relevant or practical. Put on your thinking hat and prepare to have a serious lesson in the law regarding “nullification” that every single American critically needs to learn.

<style=”text-align: right;”=””>David Callihan, President, Revitalizing the Second Amendmentstate-nullification-300x130

Of the several explanations of “nullification” for why the states do not have the ability to nullify federal “law,” the most iron clad is as follows:

Priority of the Supremacy Clause

Article VI Clause 2 (The Supremacy Clause) establishes that the only unqualified “supreme Law of the Land” is the Constitution itself. No “law” is above it, not federal enactments, not treaties, not international law.

Federal enactments only rise to the level of “supreme Law” if the enactment is made “in Pursuance” of the Constitution. In “Pursuance” means the enactment, if a bill, satisfies the procedural requirements of the Constitution (i.e., both houses of Congress pass the bill before it goes to the President and appropriation bills start in the House). And, the bill satisfies the substantive requirements of the Constitution. This means a bill relates to and is within the scope of one of the enumerated powers of the general government.

No Unconstitutional “Laws” only Null Enactments

If the procedural or substantive Constitutional prerequisites are not met, then the federal bill does not become part of the “supreme Law of the Land.” This nullification principle was espoused in 1803 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. In fact, the Marbury Court tells us this is a rule of Constitutional law which predates our Constitution and the colonies.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, have dispensed scores of decisions on this nullification issue. These decisions tell us such an unconstitutional “enactment” never becomes law and it is void “from its inception” such that it never becomes “law.” Such unconstitutional “enactments” never establish any right, convey any privilege, and are never enforceable.

Note, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law. The phrase “unconstitutional law” is an oxymoron. “Law” is a term of art which presumes that an “enactment” is constitutional, and therefore enforceable. But, no “enactment” can become “law” unless it is first and foremostly constitutional.

We can say that an unconstitutional “enactment” has the “color of law” but we cannot say it is “a law” or “the law” because that is a legal impossibility under principles of constitutional law, which is also noted in Article VI, Clause 2 of our Constitution. “Color of law” means something that has the outward appearance of legal authority, when in fact it has no legal authority. One cannot “nullify” an unconditional “enactment” because it is automatically “nullified” under Article VI Clause 2.

A State and State Officers’ Response to Unconstitutional Enactments

So, what can, or should, or must a State do about an unconstitutional enactment? The answer comes from two sources. The first source is the Constitution. The other source is the ancient inherent principle of sovereignty which applies to all the States.

Oath to Support the Constitution

First, under Article VI, Clause 3, every judicial, legislative, and executive officer (except the U.S. President) is required to take an oath to “support” the Constitution. The President’s oath says he/she must “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. (Art. II §1 Clause 8).
The terms “preserve,” “protect,” “defend,” and “support” are all synonymous terms. There is no difference in the duty of the President and other governmental officers, State or general. (The “general government” is that which operates out of Washington D.C. The States are part of the “federal government” as is the general government, but the general government is not part of the State governments.)

Officers Required to have Working Knowledge of the Constitution

Implicit in this constitutionally mandated oath to “support” the Constitution is that the oath taker must have a working knowledge of the Constitution. If one does not understand the Constitution and the principles of federalism under which our Republic was founded, they cannot effectively “preserve,” “protect,” “defend,” and “support” the Constitution.

Nature of the Oath to Support

This oath is affirmative, active, personal, and perpetual. This means one under the oath cannot defer to someone else’s judgment or put off making a determination as to whether an “enactment” is, or proposed “enactment” would be, unconstitutional. It also means they may not propose, sponsor, support, vote for, or enforce any unconstitutional enactments.

In fact, because the oath is active and affirmative, they are duty-bound to resist any effort by others to propose, sponsor, support, vote for, or enforce an unconstitutional enactment. The failure of such an oath taker to act to resist an unconstitutional proposal or enactment is as much of a violation of their duty as would be an affirmative act to promote or enforce an unconstitutional enactment. This oath is not limited by political or geographic boundaries. This is part of federalism.

Allegiance and Protection

Secondly, under the sovereign principle of “Allegiance and Protection” the state sovereigns have an absolute, unqualified duty to protect the fundamental rights of their citizens from infringement. Under the American system of government, another way to say this is that the States have a duty to ensure the continuity of the people’s sovereignty; this means from any infringement, from any source, including the general government. This also means that, if an infringement is occurring or is imminent, the State must stop the infringement and/orinterpose between the potential infringer and its citizens.

The enforcement of an unconstitutional enactment would be such an infringement.

Interposing is not “nullification,” and it is not constitutionally based.

“State Nullification” is at State Discretion; Duty to Interpose is Not!

Besides state “nullification” being a legal impossibility, there is another problem with those who seek to apply this myth. “State nullification” under this theory is at the discretion of the State. This means if “We the People” want the state to “nullify” an unconstitutional enactment (which presupposes it is a “law” and enforceable) we are supposed to talk to, or coerce, our state officers into passing laws to “nullify” the offending enactment.

Under constitutional nullification, the nullification is automatic, which means the state officers have no option; they are duty-bound to resist such unconstitutional enactments whether the officers or the citizens want to resist them or not. Likewise, under the principle of “Allegiance and Protection” state officers are duty-bound to interpose to protect us from such unlawful activity, such as an attempt to enforce an unconstitutional enactment. This requires them to resist violently when necessary to stop the infringement. This is what actual nullification looks like, and involves interposing.

A Case Study on State Nullification

Let’s look at a real-life scenario to see how the above nullification plays out in actuality.

The Kansas Second Amendment Preservation Act

The recently passed Kansas Second Amendment Preservation Act (KSAPA) wrongfully, but implicitly recognizes the general government’s authority to regulate firearms that have entered the stream of interstate commerce, either before or after they are sold at retail. This Act seeks to “nullify” some unconstitutional federal regulations by asserting that the Federal government’s unconstitutional application of such unconstitutional Federal regulations doesn’t apply to firearms that are made in Kansas, and never leave Kansas (i.e., this Act does not apply to “non-Kansas” firearms).

This Act also wrongfully recognizes that the general government has the constitutional authority to regulate our personal interstate travel if we are carrying a firearm. To our knowledge, the general government has never asserted such authority. This is simply a bonus the State of Kansas attempts to give the general government.

The reality is that the general government has absolutely no authority to regulate firearms [Arms] at all. Therefore, KSAPA is unconstitutional in that it is promoting a concept that is unconstitutional (i.e., that the general government has the constitutional authority to regulate the people’s access and bearing of firearms at least in some situations).

Supporting KSAPA was a Violation of the Oath to Support

Every state legislator that proposed, supported, or voted for the KSAPA violated their constitutional oath to support/protect the Constitution, as did the Governor. The fact that some of them may have done this out of ignorance is no excuse. Remember, they have a duty to have a working knowledge of the Constitution under their oath to support/protect the Constitution.

Some attempted to justify this on incrementalism (i.e., the argument is even though they violated the Constitution, they gained something).

First, those of us under the oath to support are not given discretion to violate the oath or the Constitution when in our opinion it gives us a “gain.” That leaves the Constitution open to the whims of men, not the rule of law.

That is what our public servants are doing now, violating the Constitution when in their opinion it serves our “collective” best interests. If all had stood on their oath we would not be in this situation. If all would stand on their oath, our troubles would soon be over.

Incrementalism is like negotiating with cannibals about how much of you they will eat for dinner. No matter how the negotiations go, you lose, and once it is gone, it is gone for good.

Supporting KSAPA was a Violation of Allegiance and Protection

In addition, the KSAPA violated the principle of “Allegiance and Protection” by prohibiting the state officers, including law enforcement, from interposing themselves between you and the general government in the event the general government sent agents into the state to unconstitutionally arrest you or take your firearms. This duty is absolute! Every legislator that voted for this act also violated this sovereign principle.

What’s in a Word?—Everything!

We have been told “…the Constitution does not limit firearms in any manner.” It is more correct to say, and more to the point to say, it prohibits the general government from regulating “Arms” (not just firearms) in any manner. The Constitution does not give us any rights nor does it restrict our rights.

In fact, the concept of restricting rights is an oxymoron. We must learn to be more careful with language and concepts. It is in large part through chicanery that our rights have been infringed.

Protect Persons vs. Securing Rights

Recently at a Boy Scout merit badge class, the instructor told the scouts that the first priority of a government is to protect its people. This is absolutely false under the Founders’ system of government. “…[G]overnments are instituted among men…” “… to secure [the people’s fundamental] rights…” (Declaration of Independence).

There is a subtle difference between protecting a person and securing one’s rights, but it is a distinction of immense importance. The NSA is violating every Americans’ liberty [unconstitutionally] by spying on every American to “protect” them. In fact, it is very hard to protect anyone without limiting their Liberty, which is one reason why the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment to make clear the general government has no authority over the people’s ability to “keep and bear Arms…”

The government protects people by taking away their Liberty to choose if they will eat salt, buy bigger than 16 oz. soda pops, eat transfats, use an incandescent light bulb, or wear a seatbelt or a helmet when riding a motorcycle. It also seeks to protect us by taking way our right to “keep and bear Arms.” Regulating our property to the extent of violating our “ownership” interest is a hollow shell. Taxes on real estate are no more or less than feudal rent.

In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no duty to protect our persons. That means a police officer has no duty to you to protect you. If a police officer refuses to respond to your call for help, you cannot sue him, nor can he (or she) be criminally prosecuted. Of course he may be fired.

Kansas’ History in Arms Regulation

Kansas has a long history of being antagonistic to the peoples’ fundamental right to “keep and bear Arms.” Remember, Huelskamp’s constitutional amendment to clarify the right to “keep and bear” was not a collective right for purposes of the Militia. Very good man!

Kansas recently expanded the people’s privilege to be armed with a knife. Yet the State still considers such to be a privilege rather than a right that Kansans have the liberty to freely exercise. By doing so, it may have done more damage to our right in the long run. Licensing of firearms is the recognition of a “privilege,” not a “right,” as is providing a privilege to carry a knife.

Presidential Executive Orders

What about presidential executive orders (PEO)?


Article VI, Clause 2 applies to PEOs as well. As long as EOs are used to administrate the executive department they are lawful. But, if they start creating “laws,” including to modify laws, they violate at least Article I §1 and §7 Clause 2, Article II §1 Clause 8, and Article VI Clause 2. If they are being used to not enforce laws they violate Article II §1 Clause 8 and Article VI Clause 2. Any such PEO is automatically nullified under Article VI Clause 2.

Anyone that carries out such a PEO is in violation of their oath to protect the Constitution. Their oath is to God. Their duty is to the American people; it is not to the President. We learned at Nuremberg that the excuse “I was just following orders” does not fly. That rule is alive and well in America if we would only enforce it.

Incompetent Public Servants and Popular Myths

The issue of “nullification” is so fundamental to our Constitution, it is unbelievable that so many politicians (and patriots) do not understand it. When politicians vote in support for such things as the KSAPA they are in violation of their oath to protect the Constitution. Such shows they do not have a working knowledge of the Constitution, let alone the principle of nullification.

Most people believe that the “Supremacy Clause” means all federal enactments override state law and all federal enactments are “law” until a federal court or even the Supreme Court says otherwise. Both of these beliefs are absolutely false and inconsistent with federalism, and another misunderstanding of the principle of nullification.

Only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the States. This is a recognition of the States’ sovereignty. (See Article III § 2, Clause 2) When the Kansas Attorney General joined the Obama Care lawsuit in Florida, he violated his oath to support the Constitution and diminished Kansas’ sovereignty. He told me he knew he could go to the Supreme Court, but felt that it would be too costly. This was incorrect.

Most citizens do not understand the States can never be required to enact particular legislation by the general government, or to participate or administrate in any federal program. If we are in bed with the general government, it is because our elected state officials voluntarily put us there at some point. A better analogy is that our state officials are in bed with the general government, in part, for access to “federal” dollars they can use to buy the favor of corporate cronies. This spawns neo-fascism.

Who is to Blame?

These issues all relate to foundational and fundamental principles of the Republic. Public servants cannot begin to uphold their oath to protect the Constitution unless and until they understand these principles.

Still, the ultimate fault for the demise of the Republic is on “We the People” for not holding our public servants accountable. Collective guilt is no guilt and a collective responsibly is no responsibility. We are individually to blame.

Every true American needs to learn this lesson regarding nullification as part of our personal reeducation in the principles of liberty and justice, if we have any hope of restoring our country to its place of preserving freedom for our future generations. As the Constitution says in its Preamble, its purpose is to “preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity.” But without correct knowledge, there is no way such blessings can possibly be preserved! That’s just a fact of life. So understanding nullification properly is every citizen’s duty to learn.

Our patriotic duty and moral duty to the Republic (and each other) is a personal responsibility. We do not get credit for what someone else does, nor do we get demerits for their bad actions or inaction. Our duty is not diminished because no one else is doing their duty, or because we don’t think we can make a difference. This is when faith and courage come in. Americans use to have faith and courage. Now they just hope for change. We need a change of thinking about nullification, and fast!

Correcting a Common Tenth Amendment Center Misunderstanding of “Nullification”

Understanding nullification matters.

In an article by Michael Boldin, Correcting a Common Libertarian Misunderstanding on Nullification [i], Boldin says of the libertarian movement generally and Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. [ii] in particular “… nullification isn’t their expertise. It’s ours.”


Who is the Tenth Amendment Center?

We assure you that the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) feels this way about everyone else as well. No one else can possibility know as much about “nullification” as TAC does. One might say

TAC invented “state nullification” and one would be right to say so, TAC did invent it.

Michael Boldin is the founder and leader of the TAC, a national group. He is the number-one spokesperson (We don’t think there is a number-two) on behalf of TAC.

Boldin believes he and TAC are the leading entity and spokesperson educating and promoting “State nullification”.

One of his supporters said that he (the supporter), Boldin and a small group of others revitalized “nullification“. He was very adamant about it. It is as if they consider it “their thing.”

As you might guess from the name of his organization, Tenth Amendment Center, Boldin believes, or at least espouses the belief that “State nullification” is based in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, and it’s a State action.

The Legal Basis for Nullification

First, “nullification” as espoused by Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 is in fact constitutionally based. Jefferson said of it:

“. . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…” [iii]


So in Jefferson’s view nullification is predicated on an unconstitutional act, i.e., an act outside the general government’s enumerated authority as delineated in the Constitution. Madison also had this belief. [iv]

Another way to say “unauthoritative, void, and of no force” is to say “null,” which legally speaking means “having no legal validity.”

Five years later, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the same principle in a formal holding. Chief Justice John Marshall said for the Court:

“… a law repugnant to the Constitution is void….” [v]

Chief Justice Marshall made it clear that this was a general principle of constitutional law, not just of the U.S. Constitution. Marshall did rely upon specific language in the Constitution as part of the Court’s support for this holding. Marshall noted:

“It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.” (Emphasis added.)

Marshall was quoting Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Supremacy Clause. [vi] Subsequently the Court in addressing unconstitutional enactments has stated:

“An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offence created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.”
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371,376-77 (1879)

“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 426 (1886)

These cases tell us that an unconstitutional enactment is ipso facto (by that fact itself) null and void, and not enforceable.

Automatic Constitutional Nullification

Article VI is a self-actuating (automatic) nullification provision. If a federal enactment is not in “Pursuance” of the Constitution, but Congress passes it, and the President signs it, it is null, period.

Note again the trigger is the fact the enactment is unconstitutional.

Note also the Court does not say such enactments are “voidable”; it says they are “void” as in when passed and signed. The Court does not make them void, the Constitution does. Article VI, Clause 2 does.

So “constitutional” or “Article VI” or “Jeffersonian” nullification, whatever you want to call it:

1. Only applies to unconstitutional enactments, and
2. Occurs automatically at the constitutional/federal level.

Tenth Amendment Center’s “Nullification”

Michael Boldin does not accept these basic underlying principles of nullification. Boldin says [vii]:

“So here’s how we define nullification over at TAC: ‘Any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null and void, or unenforceable within a particular area.’”

But he explains further:

“While I often refer to marijuana states and nullification, that’s not the only thing happening. It’s just the most effective so far. This really can and should be applied to virtually anything the federal government does (a vast majority of which is unconstitutional in the first place). ” (Emphasis added.)

TAC believes “nullification” is an act, and that this “act” is what “nullifies” a law or enactment; but only if the “act” makes the law or enactment “null and void” or “unenforceable” within a “particular [geographical] area”.

As previously shown, nullification is not an act; it is automatic. It applies to an enactment which is inconsistent with the Constitution and it makes such act null everywhere in the Republic. There is no such thing as an enactment which is constitutional in Kansas and unconstitutional in Florida.

There is no “State Nullification”

There is no such thing as “State nullification” because:

1. No pre-constitutional authority by the States to nullify an act of the general government existed.

The general government was created by the Constitution so no such authority could have existed before the general government itself existed. Such is simply a legal and physical impossibility.

2. Therefore, any authority for State nullification of laws by the general government must come from the Constitution. There is none.

The often-made argument that such State nullification power comes from the Tenth Amendment does not hold water because the Tenth Amendment only refers to sovereign powers of the States which existed before the Constitution. As we have shown, there were none related to the general (or federal) government.

The Coup de gras for the “State nullification” argument is even more ironclad:

3. As an unconstitutional enactment is automatically nullified at the constitutional level, thus there is no “law” to be “nullified” by the States.

So when Boldin says; ” This [nullification] really can and should be applied to virtually anything the federal government does (a vast majority of which is unconstitutional in the first place)” (Emphasis added.) [viii]

What is he advocating? Well whatever it is, it is not “nullification” or at least constitutional/Article VI nullification.

It sounds like he is advocating lawlessness and anarchy. It would appear Boldin’s real problem is not with unconstitutional enactments per se, but rather federal law in general.

For whatever reason, TAC has twisted “nullification” into the myth of “State nullification,” and then twisted that into not only nullification of unconstitutional enactments (a Constitutional/legal principle), but “nullification” of any constitutional laws that TAC does not like. These unfriendly laws appear to be mostly drug and marijuana laws.

There is no legal or constitutional principle of “nullification” of a constitutional law. Such is a construct is in the mind of TAC, yet it uses the term interchangeably to apply to both constitutional laws and unconstitutional enactments that never become law pursuant to Article VI, Clause 2.

Federalist Principle of Voluntary Cooperation

TAC also confuses the principle of Article VI nullification (and perhaps its extra-constitutional “nullification”) with non-cooperation under principles of federalism. Boldin stated:

“So, disagreeing with both Judge Napolitano and James Madison, libertarians of this particular stripe tend to tell us that such noncompliance doesn’t work. ‘The feds will just come in and enforce anyway,’ is a common response. Or, as Edwin Vieira recently stated, “This is not nullification; rather, it is simply non-cooperation.” And, “it is a stop-gap measure at best.”

It is well-settled law that under principles of federalism, the general government may not require the States to enact particular legislation (such as the Militia law per the 1903 Dick Act, which all 50 States have enacted) and it cannot require the States to participate in or administrate any federal regulatory scheme or program. [ix] States are not required to enforce federal law.

This principle of non-cooperation or voluntary non-compliance is not constitutionally based, but based upon federalism, and relates only to constitutional laws (i.e., State officers are already prohibited under Article VI, Clause 3 from supporting or enforcing enactments which are unconstitutional under Article VI, Clause 2, or proposals for such).

When a libertarian told Boldin the federal government could come in and enforce the law, even if the States did not comply, or when Dr. Vieira stated such action (non-compliance) was “not nullification; rather, it is simply non-cooperation . . . it is a stop-gap measure”; they were both 100% correct.

Boldin took offense because he lives in a different “reality.” This drove Boldin to say:

“While I certainly respect the contributions made in the broader constitutional understanding and the libertarian movement by people like Vieira, nullification isn’t their expertise. It’s ours.”

Yes, Dr. Vieira, a world-class scholar and practicing attorney for thirty years, and the rest who point out the legal reality of what TAC promotes, are wrong because no one has the “expertise” in “nullification” that TAC has. Boldin’s vast level of inexperience has overshadowed Dr. Vieira’s four Harvard degrees, his scholarship (authored five books related to our constitutional situation (2002-2014)) and his decades of experience and research.

This statement by Boldin is true in a twisted sort of way because no one else could understand that “nullification”, as used by TAC, only exists in an alternate reality called TAC world. What this libertarian and Dr. Vieira did not understand is that TAC has its own private brand of “nullification”, which is only partially relates to constitutional nullification. How dare the libertarians confuse the issue with facts and legal principles!

Interposing is not Nullification

TAC also would have the States believe that they need not interpose to “nullify” a federal enactment, but rather that interposing is just one more tool the States have in their mystical “nullification” quiver from which to choose. Boldin says:

“The common version of this opposition [to nullification] is that nullification doesn’t count unless there’s some kind of physical stand off between State or local government officials and federal government officials.” [x]

TAC does not even realize that “interposing” is not part of nullification at all. It has a different source for its authority. Interposing is an absolute duty under the ancient inherent sovereign Principle of Allegiance and Protection.

Never heard of Allegiance and Protection? It is noted at least three times by the Apostle Paul [xi], three times in theDeclaration of Independence [xii] and it is the “allegiance” you refer to when you say “I pledge allegiance to the flag . . .” and has been recognized by the Supreme Court in many cases [xiii].

The States have a duty to interpose any time anything or anyone threatens our rights, including our right to “Life, Liberty” and property. If a hostile band of Canadians unexpectedly sweep down from the north to conquer and pillage, the states have a duty to stop those wild-eyed Canadians.

They have a similar duty to stop the general government from “infringing” upon our right and duty to be armed, to stop it from regulating our personal property rights out of existence, or from indefinitely “detaining” us without a warrant based on probable cause issue by an independent judge.

James Madison referred to this duty in the Virginia Resolution of 1798. [xiv]

TAC does not know of or understand this principle. It believes interposing is optional. Interposing means exactly what it says: for the State to get between its citizens and the interloper. If the interloper wants the citizens, it must go through the State to accomplish its objective.

If the interloper is the general government preparing to unlawfully confiscate a citizen’s arms, or to indefinitely detain a citizen without benefit of a probable cause arrest warrant, there is really no other way to protect the citizen’s rights but physically get in the way of the feral federal agents. Interposing is a duty; it is not an option!

One of the main problems we have in the Republic now is that the governments treat their duties as optional. How does TAC propose to restore the Republic by doing the same? The governments’ duty is to “secure” the people’s rights. Shouldn’t we teach the people their rights and motivate them to demand the governments uphold the governments’ duty? Can we restore the Republic any other way?

Recall interposing is necessarily a defensive posture. Think of the rattle snake coiled up ready to strike if bothered as in “Don’t tread on me”.

To allow agents of a feral federal government to effect a detention of someone for violating unconstitutional federal firearms enactments (all restrictive federal firearms enactments are unconstitutional) and only respond by sending a summons to the offending federal agent, if the State can find out who that is, is a violation of this duty of Protection and is not a vindication of the citizens’ rights.

This is exactly what the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act did. It also conceded the fact that the general government has authority to regulate (infringe) firearms that travel either commercially or privately in interstate commerce.

This act codified a violation of the State officers’ duty under their oath to support the Constitution and the State’s duty ofAllegiance and Protection. We will not save the Republic by conceding such ground and further instilling in our public servants their blind belief in the supremacy of the general government.

Boldin quotes author Tom Woods as saying:

“The Tenth Amendment Center has done more than anyone in the world to promote the Jeffersonian idea of nullification.” [emphasis added] [xv]

We note TAC’s “nullification” does include “Jeffersonian” nullification (Art. VI based on unconstitutionality), but it also includes federalism and anarchy. So Wood’s statement is true in part, but it can also be said:

“TAC has done more to muddy the water as to what Jeffersonian nullification is than anyone else in the world.”

TAC’s bottom line is revealed with this statement from the subject article:

“More important than what qualifies as nullification is how well these efforts work.”

This is just another way of saying the end justifies the means.

How does making a constitutional law “ineffective” restore the Constitution? It doesn’t; but that does not really matter if your main objective is something other than restoring the Constitution.

TAC does not understand constitutional “nullification,” and what’s more does not want to understand it. It is merely interested in a technique, which it calls “nullification”, that will give TAC what it wants, and that is, at least in part, to defy legitimate authority which restricts personal behavior in which some persons want to engage, and therefore want to end drug laws both federal (unconstitutional) and State, which can be legitimate.

Isn’t what TAC is advocating exactly what we are trying to stop the general government from doing, that is, acting in a lawless fashion in disregard for the rule of law?

Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA)

The Declaration of Independence in Charge 23 against the King states:

“He [the King] has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.”

When the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) does not criminalize and stop the general government’s actions in unlawfully “arresting” citizens or seizing their firearms under bogus federal gun control “laws”, it amounts to the State standing down or “declaring us out of [the State’s] Protection . . .”

The Kansas SAPA is even worse. Not only does it not interpose to Protect the rights of the citizen, as the state has a duty to do, but the State, after requiring its law enforcement officers (who are under oath to the Constitution) to stand by and watch the unconstitutional seizures, then retains the option to send a summons to the offending federal agent.

So Kansas places more importance on vindicating its “sovereignty” than Protecting its citizens’ rights. The servant has put its interest ahead of its master’s! Considering the citizens are sovereign in our Republic, this would have been treasonous under the European and common law concept of Allegiance and Protection.

How does this restore the Republic? How does this put us back in control of the Republic? How does this teach the State to uphold its solemn or constitutional duty, and not to “pimp us out” to the feds?

The TAC’s State Liberty Preservation Act (anti-NDAA) only requires the State agents and employees not to assist the federal agents in applying the “law of war” against a U.S. citizen or other constitutionally protected person. This is once again the State “declaring [citizens] out of [the State’s] Protection . . .”

Think about this: the “law of war” are rules prescribing conduct for the waging of war against some entity (generally a nation). Under the NDAA, war is being waged on “We the People”!

Remember what Senators Graham and McCain said on the Senate floor: “America is the battlefield.” So a State passing this bill is saying “although the federal government has declared war on you citizens, we will not protect you.”


How does TAC think that “We the People” supporting bills that exempt our State governments from their absolute duty to protect our lives and Liberty is going to restore the Republic or put us back in charge? The fundamental problem is that the governments, State and federal, are not upholding their duties to us and the Constitution (really the same thing). Doesn’t this model bill simply re-enforce the problem?

TAC’s Concept is Dangerous

TAC’s brand of “nullification” is dangerous because it obscures the real problems we have with our “public servants” and perpetuates their failure to uphold their duty, including their duty to protect our rights.

TAC would have the State’s believe that they may “nullify” unconstitutional enactments and bad laws if they choose to do so. In reality the State officers have no power to nullify, but rather have a duty under their oath to support the Constitution to not comply with any unconstitutional enactment, and to in fact draw awareness to such. That is much more powerful!

Hacking at the Root Evil

The root cause of the problems ailing the Republic is of course that “We the People” do not understand the Constitution and principles of federalism upon which our Republic is based. Therefore, we cannot hold our “public servants” accountable, even if we wanted to do so.

Those of us that realize it is “We the People’s’” ignorance and apathy that is killing the Republic should understand that the TAC’s twisted concept of “nullification” does not help get “We the People” back on track.

The primary symptoms of this root cause are that our public servants do not follow the Constitution or the will of the people within the bounds of the Constitution. As such, they no longer represent us, but rather represent special interest groups including the GOP and Democrat parties.

Education is the Key

Our public servants need to be educated that under Article VI, Clause 3 [xvi] they have an obligation (duty) to have a working knowledge of the Constitution, and they have a duty to apply that knowledge to every act they undertake. Their duty does not allow them to wait until someone else, including a federal court decides if a law passes muster under Article VI, Clause 2. That is their job.

They need to know that their duty to support the Constitution has no geographic or political boundaries, and they are as obligated to resist an unconstitutional enactment of the Washington D.C. government, as any passed by the State government. That is the nature of federalism, which is part of the checks-and-balances on our government.

The oath to support the Constitution is as deep and wide as the Constitution and Republic it was intended to protect.


Considering the root problem corrupting the Republic, we need to give citizens the truth about their rights and their “public servants’” duties. Truth delayed is truth denied.

We can ill afford allowing the citizens to be misinformed about the reality of “nullification”, and to be encouraged to support bills that allow the governments and the State and local officers under oath to support the Constitution to shirk their obligations.

The Constitution is not a smorgasbord that we or our public servants get to pick and choose from. The oath to support the Constitution requires the Constitution be followed in its entirety, every time, in every situation.

The attitude that we can restore the Constitution and the Republic by supporting parts of it, and conceding parts of it, or ignoring parts of it is an immoral violation of one’s oath to support the Constitution. It is like negotiating with cannibals on how much of you they are going to eat for dinner. You will always come out on the short end of that deal.

For the sake of Liberty,

Richard D. Fry
General Counsel, Revitalizing the Second Amendment

[ii] Dr. Vieira has earned four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). He has practiced law more than thirty years, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the U.S. Supreme Court he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck. He has written numerous books and articles in scholarly journals. His works include Pieces of Eight, CRA$HMAKER( co-author) “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary”, Constitutional “Homeland Security,” “The Sword and Sovereignty”, and “Thirteen Words.”

[iii] Kentucky Resolutions, Resolve One (1798) (Thomas Jefferson)

[v] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137,180 (1803) ” Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

[vi] ” 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.”

[ix] New York vs. United States, 505 U.S. 114 (1992)( Plurality Opinion Justice O’Connor)

Printz v. United States – 521 U.S. 898 (1996)

[xi] Acts 16;16-38 Acts 22: 22-29 Acts 23:12-32

[xii] Declaration of Independence,

” 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… He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us….”

[xiii]Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165, 21 Wall. 162 (1874), Elk v Wilkins 112 U..94 1884, Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1,6 (1957)

[xiv] “That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it’s existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

[xvi] “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

Correcting a Common Tenth Amendment Misconception About Nullification – Richard D. Fry – copyright (c)2013

Richard Fry addresses AG Eric Holder Regarding States’ Authority to Protect Its Citizens

An Open Letter to Attorney General Holder from RT2A’s General Counsel, Richard D. Fry of Kansas

Friday, May 03, 2013

RE: Your Letter of April 26, 2013 regarding Kansas Senate Bill 102.

[Read article from Wichita (Kansas) Eagle Newspaper here:

[Read AG Holder’s letter to KS Governor Brownback here:]

Dear Attorney General Holder,

In your letter you indicated that:

“The law purports to nullify certain federal firearms requirements and to authorize the State of Kansas to charge and convict federal officers for performing their law enforcement duties.”

First, as you should know, the states do not have the constitutional authority or sovereign authority to “nullify” federal law. Please stow that red herring elsewhere.

Second, the Constitution provides in relevant part:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme Law of the Land…” [U.S. Const. Article VI, Clause 2]

This provision clearly indicates that only those federal laws “made in Pursuance” of the Constitution are the “supreme Law of the Land”.

This principle has been upheld by numerous U.S. Supreme Court cases spanning over two hundred years. (See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803); Printz v. United States – 521 U.S. 898 (1996); Alden v. Maine – 527 U.S. 706 (1999))

The Supreme Court has also held that an unconstitutional law is void from its inception such that it never comes into force. (See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425,442 (1886))

Third, the Second Amendment provides:

“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.”

I have verified the meaning of the words in this Amendment with a historical dictionary, AG Holder, and they mean today what they meant when ratified. So “shall not infringe” means shall not infringe.

(I am confident in my interpretation as there are U.S. Supreme Court cases spanning over 150 years that indicate the Constitution was written for the “average citizen” and “voters”. (See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)))

Fourth, the federal government has no authority to regulate firearms (or any “Arms” for that matter) beyond requiring those citizens suitable for service in “the Militia of the several States” to purchase and keep “Arms” including firearms. Federal laws which were passed in 1927, 1934, 1938, 1968 and since are unconstitutional and therefore ipso facto null and void pursuant to Article VI cl. 2. (There is nothing for Kansas to “nullify” even if it wanted to do so.)

Fifth, as you should know the attempt to regulate “Arms” by the general provisions of the Constitution regarding interstate commerce and revenue are bogus as these provisions do not overcome the specific prohibition against doing so contained in the Second Amendment. Further, the Second Amendment was ratified after the Constitution.

Sixth, federal agents take an oath to protect and support the Constitution just like all state and federal, legislative, judicial and executive officers must do. (See U.S. Const. Article VI cl. 3.) It would be a violation of their oath of office to attempt to enforce the unconstitutional gun control laws of the federal government (and they are all unconstitutional).

Also law enforcement officers, both state and federal, are not privileged to enforce an unconstitutional law. If they do so they expose themselves to criminal charges for whatever conduct they commit, which could include assault, battery, kidnapping and murder. Frankly this is true whether Kansas passed a law or not.

All law enforcement officers faced with a choice between honoring the Constitution or enforcing unconstitutional laws can only make one choice. The proper choice would not be that suggested in your letter.

You are correct that Kansas may not interfere with federal agents “carrying out their official responsibilities.” However, violating the Constitution is not a “federal responsibility” (although you guys are becoming quite adept at doing so) and is not covered by the Supremacy Clause as I have pointed out above. Also, contrary to what you say, federal agents do not have a duty to enforce all federal firearm laws and regulations. They may only enforce those which are constitutional.

Only in countries like NAZI Germany, Red China, the USSR, and North Korea are the national agents required to enforce “all” laws. We are not quite there.

I readily admit, Mr. Holder, that this Kansas law does have some problems.

First, it implies that the federal government has constitutional authority to regulate firearms that have been moved, pre-retail, in interstate commerce. It has no such authority.

Kansas has a duty to protect my rights in this regard, and it is failing to do so.

Second, it implies that the federal government has the right to regulate firearms, post retail sale, that move interstate. It has no such authority. This would also result in a limitation of our right to travel interstate.

Kansas has a duty to protect my rights in this regard and it is failing to do so.

Third, it fails to vindicate the rights of “We the People” because it creates a new crime (to vindicate the state’s interest) but does not protect or vindicate the citizens’ rights.

Kansas has a duty to protect my rights in this regard and it is failing to do so.

Remember, we Kansans stopped the evil of slavery at our borders. We will also stop the evil of federal imperialism if need be.

I would like to discuss this further (but not from inside the back of a Department of Homeland in-Security van.)

Most Respectfully yours,

For the sake of Liberty,

Richard D. Fry
(General Counsel, RT2A)

The Changing Second Amendment Conversation

Revitalizing the Second Amendment (RT2A) is starting a new and different conversation.

Across this country, RT2A is setting the tone regarding the place that We The People must play in the on-going “gun control” debate.

While the mainstream “gun rights” organizations, such as the NRA, SAF, GOA, and others continue to parry for position against the proponents of universal background checks, RT2A is approaching the conversation from another entirely different angle of the discussion.

RT2A’s reasoning is that we believe that the Second Amendment isn’t ultimately about the right of Americans to “keep and bear arms.” While this important part of the conversation certainly exists and must be present, the real issue is about every able-bodied American’s duty to be armed and accoutered as part of our roles and responsibilities as citizens in a free society, or a “free State” as the Second Amendment refers to it.

What is this distinction, you might ask?

We are fully capable of governing and managing ourselves from the ground-up, not the top-down.

Let us elaborate on this conversation with a graphic recent example to illustrate.

Parent’s Magazine has a conversation with Vice president Biden


Those who are following the ongoing national debate in the media are familiar with how the conversation is going recently. One case-in-point involves the comments made the other day by Vice president Joe Biden when he did a question-and-answer forum session with Parent’s Magazine on Tuesday, February 20th. Mr. Biden remarked about his advice to his wife, Jill if she ever felt threatened by an intruder. He shared how he told Jill recently that she should take his double-barrel shotgun to the balcony of the house and “fire off two blasts” as a statement to the perpetrator that she is more than capable to defend herself with this lethal weapon. Joe then went on to say how women participating in the forum should purchase a double-barrel shotgun as a better weapon than an AR-15 “to protect yourselves” since that semi-automatic weapon is “harder to aim; it’s harder  to use, and in fact, you don’t need thirty rounds to protect yourself . . . Buy a shotgun . . . Buy a shotgun” instead, for this kind of situation.

A three-way conversation on Fox News

During a subsequent three-way conversation on Fox News, this story was discussed and replayed by “America Live” Correspondent Megyn Kelly on February 21, 2013 with Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard and Pete Hegseth, CEO of Concerned Veterans of Americajoining in the discussion. What was most interesting about this exchange was toward the end of the conversation, when they all addressed the real issue of this debate. All three of these individuals agreed that are all smart enough and strong enough to govern ourselves as Americans. We don’t need to have some top-down bureaucratic system out of Washington, D.C. creating draconian laws and invasive red tape to keep us free from harm. Rather the answer is through liberty in law, managed by all of us as intelligent American citizens. You can watch their conversation here:

RT2A is of the firm belief that the U.S. Constitution lays out a clear path for all Americans to be safe and secure. The answer is right in our founding documents. Several sections of the Constitution, including Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 dealing with the role of “the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion,” and that this State-sanctioned and organized establishment is “organiz[ed], arm[ed], and discipline[ed]” for the benefit of all of us. Ultimately, all of this has to do with reeducation. The Second Amendment tells us what is “necessary” to have “security.” What these commentators, and many Americans are offended by is that Mr. Biden, the President, Congress, bureaucrats in the alphabet agencies (i.e., DHS, FEMA, FBI, etc),  and others are suggesting that “the government” as the great “nanny state” needs to tell us what the best means is to protect ourselves, even down to what Arms we should and shouldn’t be allowed to use in our self-defense.

To the contrary, RT2A believes there is a better way and it is clearly defined in the first Clause, as we have said. RT2A is now operating to reeducate and organize citizens in every State Legislative District as soon as possible, so that we as common, everyday citizens can work together in our local ground-up communities to be trained, equipped, and ordered. Americans are fully capable to make intelligent, careful, smart, and educated decisions.

For example, please click on the following interview link to hear Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. explain in clear and precise language how the “Militia of the several States” should be operating constitutionally in all fifty States. This next point is very important: The Militia is a governmental organization!

Learning this information will help Americans to revitalize the Second Amendment; but it begins with having the right conversation, as Dr. Vieira articulates in the following recent interview:


Citizens can and must all be armed and accoutered as a duty to protect ourselves “in any very interesting Emergency,” as George Washington described it, in our neighborhoods, villages, cities, counties, and States through our Second Amendment establishment, as isauthorized by law.

You can (and should as a citizen in need of reeducation on the Second Amendment) order a copy of Dr. Vieira’s CD book, The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the several States” here.

The purpose of the first Clause of the Second Amendment is to guarantee this “security,” and all of the training and equipping that goes with it. The problem is that this establishment doesn’t practically exist any longer in America, in any of the fifty States! We The People are now focusing our interest in instructing our State representatives to help us to put the “well regulated Militia,” our governmental organization designed for this purpose, back as soon as possible. That is where the conversation now needs to go.

When that scenario happens, there will be no need for our Vice president, or for that matter our President, Congress, judges, or any other elitist politicians or bureaus to be engaged in any form of patronizing conversation with the American people.  Telling any of us how we can best protect ourselves through some demagoguery of misinformation won’t be necessary. We will all be made aware through our national conversation that will lead to reeducation, becoming informed, and trained properly in the best of all possible options so that we can decide for ourselves, thank you very much.

A new book review worth reading . . .

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.’s new CD book, “The Sword and Sovereignty” has been reviewed. Here it is for all willing to take the time to digest:

Please help share the following link through Twitter and other feeds:

People across America need to be reeducated and this book can help us all!

Universal Background Checks are the Slippery Slope to Democide

Where the Slippery Slope Begins

In an article in The Daily Caller on Friday January 18, 2013, NRA’s Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker asked Vice Presdent Joe Biden during the White House meeting of Obama’s Gun Agenda Task Force why the 72,000 people who lied on their background check Form 4473, and were turned down for a gun purchase in 2010 weren’t being prosecuted. VP Biden said, “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecution on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” He’s kidding, right? Nope. He’s not kidding; but the ride down the slippery slope was now in motion.

According to Marion Hammer’s editorial in the Sunday Tallahassee Democrat on January 27, 2013, she indicated that only 44 of them were prosecuted.. That means more than 71,900 were not!

How the Slippery Slope Tends to Decline

So here are a couple of legitimate and pertinent questions:

Why would we allow the same general government who isn’t prosecuting lawbreakers under existing federal laws to create even more draconian legislation?

Why do we want to allow the general government that isn’t prosecuting crime already on the books because they don’t have time, resources, etc. to add mountains of additional laws, regulations, and red tape when they don’t show good faith to prosecute existing laws?

Said another way, why does this same general government want to put in place more intrusive and overreaching laws including “universal background checks” when they admittedly aren’t able or willing to use the laws already on the books?

The obvious answer is the same for all these questions:

It’s because this isn’t about enforcing laws to stop criminals. It’s about gun registration and knowledge of the whereabouts of every single possible purchase, trade, transfer, rental, gift, or lending of personal firearms by law-abiding, peaceful Americans in every State of the Union in violation of the Second Amendment, so that the powers-that-be will be able to eventually confiscate all guns and put in place a totalitarian police-state. It’s as we see, the other end of the slippery slope.

Examples of Slippery Slope Mechanisms

Can’t happen here? Don’t fool yourself. We’re being set up for it piece-by-piece with laws such as the supposed Patriot Act, NDAA Sections 1021 and 1022, etc.

Is the Feinstein Bill next?

Get your head out of the sand and look around. This isn’t rocket science. It’s as simple as a jig-saw puzzle. The pieces are coming together. Gun registration and confiscation is now part of main-stream conversation in the United States of America! This is something that was inconceivable here just a short time ago. The boiling pot is getting hotter and we can’t even feel it, if you get the allegory. (Sorry, we forgot that we already have the slippery slope analogy going on.)

Control Frauds Perpetrate the Slippery Slope through Government Legitimacy

White collar criminologist Dr. William K. Black of the University of Missouri at Kansas City describes a control fraud as a legitimate entity being used by heads of state or corporate executives as a weapon of fraud. This is a criminal control fraud being perpetrated by the general government against the American people. This is serious. 170 million people who were eventually killed by democide (taking of lives by government) in the 20th century are screaming from their graves at us saying, “Don’t do it! Don’t let the tyrants get away with forcing you into universal background checks that leads to registering all of your guns! If you do, you will be joining us in short order, and the liberty and justice of your great nation will be gone.”

America is not immune from travesties such as these. Just think about the intrusions that go on today that would have been completely unacceptable just a few years ago such as the ubiquitous searches and seizures at airports, sniffing dogs that provide excuse for regular searches of cars stopped for a burned out taillight, unauthorized wiretaps of citizen’s phone conversations, or authorized access to American’s e-mail, Facebook, or other social media communications without a warrant. It’s all snow-balling quickly. NDAA 1021 and 1022 has opened the door to many potential atrocities in the name of “homeland security” against the “war on terror.” Don’t be fooled. If we do nothing, it is going to continue to get worse.

Is Leveling the Slippery Slope Still Possible?

Historian Jorge Santaya warned that those who aren’t willing to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Thomas Jefferson said, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

It’s time to revitalize the first Clause of the Second Amendment and restore the necessary security of a free State once again. Get educated. Take the time. It is a small price to pay to help get us back on the right track again. Failure to act properly and make a personal commitment to participate NOW will result in the loss of everything generations of American men and women have given their lives to protect for the last 250 years.

Our biggest threat is our own personal laziness and apathy. Stand up NOW, or lose it all. It’s that simple, America. Investing a small amount of time to learn is essential to our survival and self-preservation. Start by getting educated; then stay tuned on how to put the knowledge into action. That’s coming next. For now, read this 8-part series by Dr. Edwin Vieira and get the knowledge you need to avoid disaster at the end of that slippery slope scenario!

For now, just understand that a Slippery Slope is not inevitable, if we can stop before passing the point of no return.

Lincoln’s birthday and The People’s government

Today is Abraham Lincoln’s 204th birthday.

We need to reflect for a moment upon his famous Gettysburg Address.

Anyone who has taken a tour of that awesomely reverent battlefield in southern Pennsylvania cannot but be touched by the scores of monuments enshrining the fallen soldiers of both the North and the South.


But what caused me pause when I viewed them several years ago was the obvious and blatant reference on every centrally overlying tombstone of the fact that all of these soldiers are memorialized within their Militia companies. State-after-State, company-after-company, enshrined in the memorials are fallen heroes whose legacy includes the names of their State Militia boldly displayed in covert prominence. (Notice the insignia of the State of New York in this one.)


Where has that whole establishment gone?!

Did the People remove it so that where President Lincoln clearly associated the “government of the People, by the People, and for the People” with a conscious experiential relationship to “(a) well regulated Militia,” we today are no longer cognizant of this “necessary” establishment once considered as a viable part of what constrains the potential demise, such that it “shall not perish from the Earth?”

It sure does look like someone did remove it; but we would guess that it was done without The People’s permission–a control fraud of immense proportions. All the more reason for us to revitalize the first Clause of the Second Amendment!

This establishment was clearly in the consciousness of our 16th President as Lincoln read those compelling and historical words.

What Lincoln took just over two minutes to mention was a concept where The People and their government were clearly delineated by their organized and intentional existence as a bottom-up political and social structure, not just an establishment of resistance.

We need a reeducation desperately. Go to and start relearning what we were never taught in school! For example, when was the last time you were mustered? (Even know what the word means? Probably not.) And what allowed you to be so directed? State statutes, of course, which no longer exist. (Who removed them, why, how, and when?)

Happy Birthday, Abraham Lincoln!

We hope our generation isn’t the one who disappoints you. Yes, we know. It’s up to us. But if we have anything to do about it, a revitalization is about to commence. That would be a wonderful birthday present that Lincoln would certainly be proud of us receiving too!

Revitalizing the Second Amendment

Revitalizing the Second Amendment is We The People’s job… Are you up to the task, America?

The times we live in are certainly trying ones. Social unrest on both the liberal and conservative ends of the (so-called) political spectrum is concerning a large portion of our population. Economic catastrophe has hit families, individuals, mom-and-pop businesses, corporations–literally every segment of our society is affected.

Fear of an encroaching, intrusive, and over-reaching government is a concern on the minds of many, if not most Americans. Obamacare is seen as a severe intrusion on personal rights. TSA groping in airports, and check-points on highways are concerning signs that appear like something out of a 1939 Nazi war film.

If you are concerned about the threats of legislation in recent years caused by Congressional passage of laws such as the Patriot Act (I & II), NDAA Sections 1021 and 1022, and so on, you are not alone. The question many Americans are asking is, “What can I do?” Or better yet, “What can we do?” meaning each of us who is concerned about what we see our once prosperous and secure nation is becoming before our very eyes.

Is there a way to stop the seeming threat of a movement toward a pervasive police-state with draconian laws and intrusive, technology-advanced surveillance and monitoring tools (like unmanned drones [] and locally-directed SWAT forces []) that will make it difficult for anyone to oppose state-sanctioned color of law intimidation?

We believe the answer is affirmative and simple. Return to constitutional government. Adhere to the rule of law and demand its enforcement as clearly expressed in theDeclaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the fifty state constitutions, and the statutes and laws that align with our “republican form of government” as described in Article IV, Section 4 of our founding document as guaranteed to the People of all fifty states.

Revitalizing the Second Amendment,,, So where do we start to rectify this situation?

How about revitalizing the Second Amendment, particularly the first Clause which states that “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State . . .” Why not begin by working together as Americans from every rural area, community, town, village, city, county and State to instruct our legislators keep their oaths of office to “support and defend” the U.S. Constitution and State constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” (as specifically worded in each State’s particular oath, of course) by working together in their houses of legislation to revitalize the militia of the several States, individually and severally now!

Who better an authority to show us how foundational an idea to our well-being as a country this concept is than our first President George Washington who said this as he exhorted in the first term of his Presidency :

It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, thatevery Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age (we might beg to suggest the latter number could be raised a decade or two) should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so fare accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency . . .

Well, if these times are not the potential for a “very interesting Emergency,” then there’s no such time one could ever exist. It doesn’t matter which Party is in power; the threat is real either way.

But let’s not just sit and wonder.

Many of us have been very impressed by the words of exhortation that were given to our President and the audience of attendees to the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington last week by the imminent neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson as the following video presents:

Notice that Dr. Carson says several times that we as a people have the brains to fix these problems. We go further. We believe that the American people are all smart enough and strong enough to govern ourselves. In essence, our problem is not brains or brawn, it’s getting organized! When the National Guard and police unconstitutionally took away the arms of hundreds of legally authorized citizens in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, they did so because the police-state was organized, and we were not. That’s the solution–we need to get reeducated and reorganized. The first clause of the Second Amendmentguarantees our right to do this.

So where to we go from here? Join Revitalizing the Second Amendment as a Charter Member and let’s build an army of legal activists restoring the American Dreamtogether!

Membership options will be coming very soon.