What is the Constitution?

There has been much debate regarding the authority of the Constitution over the federal government.
Why such a debate exists, at all, is beyond the understanding of most patriots, for they understand that
the federal government does not exist of its own commandment, but that its very being stems from the
decision of the citizens who formed thirteen, separate and distinct nations after having loosed the
shackles of slavery from their former, royal oppressors. They understand that the purpose of the
Constitution was to form a federal government comprised of representatives of the several nations (i.e.,
ambassadors from those nations to the other nations comprising the new union), as selected by their
countrymen, to direct and guide a federation of nations (ergo, Federal government) in the performance
of those tasks which were common to all and which, if left to those independent and sovereign nations,
would require debilitating expense and constant reproduction of effort in thirteen, separate and distinct
forms.

True patriots, also, understand the difference between ceding authority and delegating the same. Having
never ceded any authority or power to the federal government, the citizens became the overseers of the
federal government and the insurers of that government's strict adherence to the limitations imposed
upon it by those same citizens, through the Constitution. They also made it perfectly clear, for those
who choose to live lives independent of “social reform,” that the failure of that government to remain
within the bounds imposed upon it by the Constitution would (not, could) result in the replacement of
that government with one which would uphold its honorable duty to the citizens and their respective
nation-states.

So, for those of you who are, yet, lacking in the basic knowledge of the purpose of the Constitution of
the United States, this little pamphlet is, hereby, dedicated and passed on in the hope that you will
begin to understand the depth of the severity to which you have permitted your rights and freedom,
your very existence, to be stolen and the extent to which you have subjected the freedom of your
children's, children's, children to the determination of the faceless, self-seeking, self-promoting
bureaucrats indebted to those desiring to enslave humanity, as well as the further hope that you will do
something.

• The Constitution is a contract between three parties: the citizens; the nation-states; and the
federal government.

As a contract, the Constitution specifically sets forth several issues that are not arguable among the
parties: who's in charge; what's the pecking order; what are the standards of operation; what happens if
the contract is broken; and, what happens if everything goes right. It's a simple contract which has been
complicated by those snake oil salesmen called politicians, lawyers and judges.

It is apparent and incontrovertible from the very beginning that the citizens are in charge – not the
politicians, lawyers or judges. It is the citizens who vote, who pass on the decisions of the politicians. It
is the citizens who vote, who limit the terms of the politicians who are not doing the bidding of their
constituents. It is the citizens who vote, who tell the Federal government that it is going in the right or
wrong direction, regardless of the issue or issues being considered by that institution. The citizens have
delegated some of their authority to the local, state and federal governments for the purpose of
community security and betterment, but they have not ceded that authority. It is maintained by the vote,
so long as those governments accept the determinations of those votes. Once the government – through
its politicians, its judges, its lawyers, its agents - begins to ignore the votes of the citizenry, that
government becomes tyrannical. Sound familiar?

The chain of command is simple here – the citizens are first; the nation-states are second; and the
federal government is last. It is not a matter of “interpreting” the Constitution to determine the
pecking order. It is set forth in plain English for anyone to read. Those who push the “living”
document pablum on the citizens are doing so in order to cause confusion and doubt for the sole
purpose of achieving their sinister goals, whether personal or organizational, but probably both.

There are limits imposed on the federal government, although you wouldn't recognize such as
being the case these days. Those limits determine what the federal government can and cannot
do. Specifically, the federal government has already been told what is the “common good” of the
nations and citizens, by the citizens, in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and any operation
of the federal government outside the list of common duties and tasks (one must now consider
the amendments, too) is unconstitutional on its face and rebellion against the one, truly sovereign
authority of this Union – the citizenry.

So long as the federal government operates within the limits imposed upon it by the citizens
through the Constitution, then the citizens and the nation-states are both morally and legally
bound to cooperate with that government. So long as the federal government operates within the
limits imposed upon it no citizen has the authority to disregard the laws passed for the purpose of
that government properly functioning and executing its responsibilities. When it exceeds its
constitutional limitations – not so much.

When the federal government exceeds those limitations and restrictions imposed upon it by the
Constitution, it is the ethical, legal and moral duty of every true, patriotic citizen to resist that
government, to the extent of deadly force, if need be, and to replace that government with one
which will better serve the citizens' needs. If the government adheres to those limitations and
restrictions, then it will continue to operate uninterrupted. Those are the two alternatives. There
are no others. There is no middle ground.

Should the government maintain its operations in accordance with the Constitution, there will be
no end to that government. It will be properly and constantly supported by the citizens. It will
continue so long as it stays within its bounds.

• It is a standard by which the performance of the federal government is measured.

There is no other means by which it can be determined whether the federal government is
performing as required, or even as envisioned, by the Constitution. Specific performance
standards have been established in the Constitution. To argue that the Constitution is a “living”
document is to argue insanity and assert that the Constitution is a suicide pact. For if the
argument is accepted that the Constitution is, in fact, a “living” document, then the determination
of whether the federal government is performing as required becomes a subjective determination.

2 of 18
It becomes a case of each citizen deciding for him or herself and each citizen's decision would be
equally correct.

The absurdity of that position becomes even more absurd when one considers that each and
every citizen would, under the “living” document theory, have equal right, both morally and
legally, to enforce their determination upon any and all others upon whom they could
successfully exercise such force. In other words, government would become government by
force of arms, not government by law, which, in this day and age, certainly has the ring of
familiarity.

• It is a limiting document in that it delegates, but does not cede, authority and power to
the federal government only in so far as that authority and power is necessary to the
proper and lawful completion of the common tasks of that government, as set forth in
the Constitution, itself.

It is exceedingly important for all citizens to truly know and understand the difference between
the ceding of authority and power and the delegating of that authority and power. Such
knowledge is so important that without it one cannot hope to understand the Constitution and the
illegal operations of the existing government.

To cede is give up control. One cedes one's authority and power over something when one sells
that item to another. For example, one person sells his car to another. The seller has ceded his
authority and power over that property to the buyer. No longer does the seller have the authority
to enter that vehicle, much less move it to some other location. Nor does the seller have the
power to again sell the vehicle to a third party. He has ceded all authority and power over that
property to the person who has purchased it for the agreed amount. What the buyer does with the
car is no longer any business of the seller.

To delegate is to temporarily grant authority and power under supervision. The citizens have
delegated to the federal government that authority and power necessary to perform the duties and
tasks associated with what the citizens have defined as “the common good.” Note that it is the
citizens who have defined “the common good,” not the government or its professional
politicians, judges or lawyers. Therefore, any exercise of the delegated authority and power
conferred upon the federal government is subject to the supervisory control of the citizens.

In other words, that delegation of temporary authority or power comes with certain limitations
and restrictions. That is exactly what the citizens did through the Constitution – they limited the
authority and power of the federal government. Authority and power were delegated to the
federal government to perform certain and specific duties and tasks for “the common good”, but
that authority and power was limited and restricted in that it could not be used to interfere with
the rights and freedom of citizens, infringe on the sovereignty of the nation-states or usurp
additional authority and power not delegated by the citizens.

3 of 18
The temporary aspect of the delegated authority and power conferred upon the federal
government by the citizens is the check the citizens have placed upon any abuse of that authority
and power. Where the federal government remains within the bounds imposed upon it by the
limitations and restrictions of the Constitution, that government will remain in effect and
functioning. Where that government exceeds its authority and power and refuses to return to the
confines of the Constitution, it is in rebellion against the citizenry and subject to overthrow, by
the vote, ideally; by force of arms, if necessary.

Certain and specific authority and power has been delegated to the federal government as
outlined in Article I, Section 8. These are the tasks and duties the federal government is to
perform for “the common good” and no others. Nowhere is there anything which permits the
federal government to bail out private corporations. Nowhere is there anything which permits the
federal government to forcefully institute a health care program at the expense of the citizens.
Nowhere is there any language which permits the federal government to steal the wages of the
citizens through an income tax scheme which has no statutory requirement for those citizens to
either file income tax returns on their wages or to pay taxes on those wages.

Any attempt or effort by the federal government to claim the authority or power, or both, to
operate or function in any area not specified within Article I, Section 8 is unconstitutional on its
face. Such an act is unenforceable as a matter of law and citizens may, by right, resist that
government in any attempt to force the citizens' compliance - with deadly force, if need be.

• It is a limiting document in that it limits the authority and power of the federal
government to that necessary to the performance of the common tasks set forth,
therein.

It should go without saying that giving the federal government the responsibility to carry out its
appointed duties and tasks in order to provide for “the common good” without granting it the
authority and power to perform those duties and tasks is what the Articles of Confederation were
all about. Not many US citizens have even heard of the Articles of Confederation, much less
know what they were about. As noble an attempt as it was to establish and unify the independent
nation-states for the specific purpose of performing common tasks and duties, the Articles of
Confederation were a failure, precisely because they granted the federal government no authority
or power, whatsoever, to enforce its responsibilities when the nation-states or citizens refused to
comply with laws designed to permit the federal government to function as intended.

Ergo, the Constitution of the United States. That document, however, also limits the federal
government. The Constitution is not a blank check for those who have succeeded in lying
themselves into an elected position, or an appointment of power, or perpetual employment at the
expense of the taxpayer. The difference is that the federal government is empowered to legislate
whatever laws are necessary for the performance of its enumerated duties and tasks. So long as
those laws are necessary to that performance, then no citizen or nation-state of the Union has any
legitimate excuse or reason to fail to comply with those laws.

4 of 18
It is precisely that issue which has us where we are, today. The federal government no longer
restricts itself to the enactment of legislation which is necessary to its function of performing
those tasks and duties set forth in Article I, Section 8. It has unilaterally, at the expense of the
rights and freedom of citizens and the sovereignty of the nation-states, expanded its authority and
power to intervene in areas of life wherein it has been strictly forbidden by the Constitution.

The federal legislature has several functions, not the least of which is determining that the
operation of the federal government is all that it's cracked up to be. If that august body should
determine, in its infinite knowledge and wisdom, that something is lacking legislatively in the
operation of the federal government and such is necessary to the operation of that government in
the performance of its duties and tasks for “the common good”, then it is the responsibility of
that body to draft and forward proposed legislation to the President for his signature and the
enactment of that legislation into law. It is the responsibility of the Executive to ensure that any
proposed legislation placed before him for his signature is necessary to the functioning of the
federal government and it is the duty of the federal judiciary to ensure that such legislation does
not exceed the limitations and restrictions imposed on the federal government by the
Constitution. If all is as it should be, then any such proposed legislation will become law and no
right minded patriot will argue the point.

• It is a limiting document in that it limits the authority and power of the federal
government by prohibiting that government from engaging in activities not specifically
set forth in the Constitution.

The Constitution specifically states that the powers not delegated to the federal government
remain powers of the (nation-)states or the citizens, themselves. Read it for yourself. Precisely
what that means is the argument between those selling us down the proverbial river and those of
us striving to remain free. Those patriots attempting to stop the onslaught against our rights and
freedom and against the sovereignty of the nation-states are having to deal with citizens who do
not understand that only those duties and tasks set forth in Article I, Section 8 are to be
performed by the federal government – and no others. Although there is a process for adding or
subtracting from that list of duties and tasks, absent compliance with that process, there is no
authority or power granted to the federal government to step outside those limits and restrictions.

Regardless of any ruling by any judge, regardless of any legislation put forth by the Congress,
regardless of any determination or order issued by the President or one of his minions - no duty
or task not specifically delegated to the federal government comes under the authority or power
of that government. Any attempt by that government to usurp (i.e., take, seize or hold without
right or legal authority; take possession by force; take arrogantly, as if by right) any authority or
power not expressly granted to it by the Constitution is illegal precisely because it is
unconstitutional and may, again, be met with the use of deadly force, if need be.

5 of 18
• It is a limiting document in that it limits the authority and power of the federal
government to that which does not interfere with the rights and freedom of citizens or
infringe on the sovereignty of the nations.

The federal government has the delegated authority and power to function within the limits and
restrictions imposed upon it by the Constitution. Those limits and restrictions prohibit that
government from interfering with the rights and freedom of citizens or the sovereignty of the
nation-states by limiting and restricting the operation of that government to the duties and tasks
defined by Article I, Section 8 as being for “the common good” and no other such duties or tasks
are permitted.

To permit the federal government to unilaterally determine what authority and power it is
permitted to exercise concerning duties and tasks which it takes upon itself is the very definition
of usurpation, as well as tyranny. Allowing such to occur without any penalty imposed on that
government for its illegal actions is to cede the authority and power by which that government
was brought into being and continues to function.

Constitutionally, such usurpation is not permitted. For to permit such by the Constitution is to
declare the Constitution dead. If one does not accept that the limits and restrictions imposed on
the federal government by that document are there to prevent the federal government from
invading the province of individual rights and freedom and the sovereignty of the nation-states
then one must accept that such rights, freedom and sovereignty are granted by the government
and, therefore, are subject to the vicissitudes of that government.

• It is a limiting document in that it requires that the federal government first obtain the
necessary delegation of authority and power from the nations and citizens for any duty
or task not previously delegated to that government before exercising such authority
and power.

Although it is without question that the Constitution sets forth the duties and tasks wherein the
citizens defined “the common good” and specifies what authority and power the federal
government is permitted to exercise, there is a process by which that government may obtain
additional duties and tasks and the authority and power to perform them. That process is the
amendment process. The problem with the federal government usurping authority and power is
does not have comes in the timing.

The process of amendment requires that the federal government, through the Congress, first seek
to amend the Constitution where that government determines that it requires additional authority
and power not already delegated by the citizens. The Constitution does not permit that the
government first exercise such retained authority and power without having first obtained the
consent of the citizenry. On the contrary, any attempt or overt exercise of such authority and
power may be ethically, morally and legally resisted, regardless of what any government hack
(be he executive, legislator, judge or agent) might determine or voice.

6 of 18
The amendment process calls for a specification of the sought after authority and power being
forwarded to the several nation-states for their consideration, debate and vote before the federal
government exercises that newly delegated authority and power. It is a requirement, not a
suggestion. The failure of the federal government to comply with the requirements of the
amendment process and to unilaterally expand its authority and power without the consent of the
citizens is, simply put, rebellion.

• It is a limiting document in that it limits the authority and power of the federal
government to the specific, common tasks defined and delegated to it by the citizens.

Article I, Section 8 defines the phrase “the common good” as used in the Constitution and sets
forth the common duties and tasks for which the citizens have delegated to the federal
government the necessary authority and power. Any duty or task taken over by the federal
government which is not necessary to the performance of the functions listed within this section
of the Constitution is, on its face, unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal.

Based on the above, under what constitutional authority and power does the federal government
place the citizens under trillions of dollars of financial burden for the purpose of bailing out their
cohorts in the financial sector? Under what constitutional authority and power does the federal
government enact legislation which makes criminals out of those citizens who refuse to
participate in a health care system for which the federal government has no constitutional
authority or power to enact, administer or enforce? Under what constitutional authority and
power does the federal government limit the rights and freedom of citizens or infringe on the
sovereignty of the nation-states by exercising authority and power not delegated to it by the
citizens? The answer to these questions, and many more, is that they have no such power and
every member of the federal government who is in a position to either enact such legislation,
enforce it or interpret it, and who does not reject such authority and power, is a rebel and, by law
– moral and constitutional – ought to be removed from any position of authority within that
government. Such removal should be done promptly and with the use of deadly force, if need be.
For it is not the simple administrative act or bleeding heart justifications that are of concern. It is
the incremental destruction of our rights and liberty, as well as the rights and liberty of future
generations, by these suppressed and depressed empire builders which is of concern to true
patriots.

• It is a limiting document in that it limits the Executive to only that authority and power
necessary to the strict performance of the common tasks set forth, therein, which have
been delegated to it by the citizens.

One must understand the generation of what we, collectively, refer to as the Bill of Rights. The
Bill of Rights encompasses the first ten amendments to the Constitution. As such, they are
individual rights – even the tenth. All of the first ten amendments were acknowledged by those
who pushed for the amendments to be rights bestowed on men by God, not by government, and
specifically because it was God who granted these rights, government had no authority, and still
does not, to meddle with, suspend or otherwise revoke any of those rights.

7 of 18
The Constitution does not authorize or empower a President to delete the right to keep and bear
arms at the stroke of his pen simply because he does not like the idea of the citizenry being
armed or believes the elitist propaganda that gun control will eliminate gun crime. It is
immaterial what he thinks or believes about the second amendment, because it is a right granted
by God and the President, no matter how god or messiah-like he believes himself to be, has no
authority to alter that right.

The Executive branch is limited in its authority and power to conduct the business of government
only insofar as it must, it is not given blanket authority and power to control the lives of citizens
on a moment to moment basis. And yet, we have multiple examples of just that occurring.
Presidents have signed Presidential Directives or Presidential Findings of Fact which authorize
members of the federal government to engage in activities which are specifically contrary to the
Constitution. No such authority or power for any branch of the federal government exists and no
rendering of the Constitution may produce such authority or power.

• It is a limiting document in that it limits the authority and power of the federal
Legislature to pass only those laws necessary to the strict performance of the federal
government under the terms and conditions of the Constitution.

It must be borne in mind that although the Constitution does not permit the federal government
to engage in whatever duties and tasks it fancies will most enrich those wandering the corridors
of power, it does permit that government to work within the bounds of delegated authority and
power to perform those duties and tasks assigned to it for “the common good” as defined by the
citizens, themselves. Therefore, the Congress is empowered to pass legislation in regard to the
federal government, but it is limited in such legislation by the three-pronged constitutionality
test.

Where Article I, Section 8 specifies a particular duty or task, or both, the federal government is
contracted by the citizens, through the delegation of authority and power, to perform that duty or
task, or both, and any legislation which is necessary to the performance of those functions is
legitimate so long as that legislation passes the three-pronged test of constitutionality. The three-
pronged test of constitutionality is simple and direct: 1) legislation must not interfere with the
rights and freedom of citizens; 2) it must not infringe on the sovereignty of the nation-states; and,
3) it must be necessary to the performance of constitutionally mandated functions delegated to
the federal government.

Any act or legislation of the federal government which interferes with the rights and freedom of
citizens, without that government having first obtained the requisite amendment granting it the
delegated authority and power to so interfere with the citizens, is unconstitutional on its face and
unenforceable as a matter of ethics, morals and law. Such legislation empowers the citizens to
refuse to comply with such laws and to use that force necessary to defend themselves from any
attempt by that government to enforce those laws, up to and including the use of deadly force, if
need be. Where the federal government attempts to enforce unconstitutional acts or legislation

8 of 18
against any citizen, it is the duty of the nations to stand between that citizen and the federal
government and to defend that citizen - to the death, if need be.

Any act or legislation of the federal government which infringes on the sovereignty of the
nation-states without that government having first obtained the requisite amendment granting it
the delegated authority and power to so infringe on the nation-states, is also unconstitutional on
its face and unenforceable as a matter of ethics, morals and law. Such legislation empowers the
citizens of those nations, and the nations as a whole, to forceably prevent the federal government
from exercising such usurped authority and power under such legislation. Where the federal
government attempts to enforce unconstitutional acts or legislation against any nation, it is the
duty of the remaining nations to stand with the targeted nation and to assist in the defense of that
nation.

Every act or law of the federal government is required by the Constitution to be necessary to the
functioning of the federal government in the performance of its delegated duties and tasks. It is
not a constitutional requirement that any duty or task which may be dreamed up by some federal
government hack in order to expand his little empire may be perpetrated upon the citizens. The
test is designed to determine if a particular need exists for legislation which is required for the
federal government to perform the duties and tasks it already has delegated to it and if such
legislation is necessary to perform those duties and tasks then it is the legal duty of Congress to
provide that legislation, the duty of the President to sign it, the duty of the federal judiciary to
support its constitutionality, and the duty of the citizens to comply with it.

The problem arises in the failure of the federal government to abide by the limitations and
restrictions imposed upon it by the Constitution in regard to legislation.

• It is a limiting document in that any actions of the federal Legislature which are carried
out under any authority and power not delegated to the federal government or
necessary to its strict performance under the terms and conditions of the Constitution,
are illegal and as such are null, void and of no effect.

The three-pronged test of constitutionality may be applied to virtually every act or law enacted
by the federal Legislature. Consider the application of that test to the proposed health care bill.
The questions must be asked, seriatim, in order to properly deal with the issue.

Does the proposed health care legislation interfere with the rights and freedom of citizens? A
single example should suffice. The proposed legislation prevents a citizen from selecting the
doctor of his choice, because only doctors admitted to practice within the program will be
permitted to see patients enrolled in the program. The legislation is, therefore, constitutionally
defective and illegal.

Does the proposed health care legislation infringe on the sovereignty of the nation-states? Again,
a single example should suffice. The proposed legislation implements a system which requires
the nation-states to support the program, through additional taxation of their respective citizens,

9 of 18
therefore, the legislation is , constitutionally defective and illegal in that it permits the federal
government to unilaterally determine its authority and power.

Is the proposed health care legislation necessary to the authority and power of the federal
government in the performance of its delegated duties and tasks? There is no delegated duty or
task of the federal government to provide health insurance, health care or health care “reform,”
therefore, the legislation is unnecessary to the functioning of the federal government and is
constitutionally defective and illegal.

The health care bill is unconstitutional on its face, therefore, it is, upon signing by the President,
null, void and of no effect.

• It is a limiting document in that the federal Legislature may not unilaterally enact
legislation which expands the authority and power of the federal government without
the consent of the citizens, given and demonstrated through the use of the amendment
process.

It is neither the responsibility nor the purview of the federal legislature to enact legislation which
they deem “best for the common good.” That is neither their function nor have they been
delegated the authority and power to do so by the citizens.

Each and every act of legislation in which the authority and power of the federal government has
been unilaterally expanded without the consent of the citizens, demonstrated through the
amendment process, is unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal. Such acts of legislation are not
enforceable as a matter of law, are morally wrong and citizens are duty bound to resist their
enforcement – with deadly force, if need be.

No legislation which is not necessary for the federal government in order to perform its
delegated duties and tasks is legitimate and citizens are not required to comply with such
legislation. The only means granted the federal government to enlarge its authority and power is
through the amendment process. That process calls for the federal government to first obtain the
delegated authority and power it seeks before it even attempts to legislate concerning that
authority and power. Obtaining the requested authority and power is done through the
amendment process which gives all of the citizens of this Union the opportunity to discuss the
amendment and consider both the pros and cons of its passage.

Should the citizenry accept the amendment it will demonstrate that acceptance by the nation-
state's legislature voting for the amendment. Should those citizens, on the other hand, reject the
amendment, they will demonstrate that rejection through the legislature failing to pass the
amendment. Two-thirds of the nation-states must vote for an amendment prior to it becoming
effective. Where in the Constitution is the amendment authorizing and empowering the federal
government to worm its way into our health care system? Where in the Constitution is the
amendment authorizing and empowering the federal government to steal our wealth to pay their
friends in the financial industry?

10 of 18
• It is a limiting document in that it limits the authority and power of the federal
Judiciary to determinations only on those issues stemming from the performance of the
federal government under the terms and conditions of the Constitution or violations,
thereof, by any other party.

The federal judiciary has certain and specific functions within the Constitution. Not one of those
enumerated functions is enacting legislation from the bench. Neither are those courts empowered
to overturn, redact or otherwise edit legitimate legislation or votes of the citizens of the nation-
states intended for the internal functioning of those nation-states.

The purpose of the federal judiciary is to decide questions of constitutional law in regard to the
federal government, but not as an adjunct to that government, nor as an appeal level for nation-
state courts which may render unpopular decisions within their own boundaries. The judges
comprising the federal court system were intended to act as enforcers of the Constitution and
prevent federal excesses. In other words, they were to hold the federal government to strict
performance of the standards set forth in the Constitution and where that government strayed
from those standards, provide the guidance, authority, power and, if necessary, force to bring the
federal government back into compliance with those limitations and restrictions on its authority
and power.

The federal judiciary was not implemented to become a rubber stamp of the federal government
for the purpose of that government unconstitutionally expanding its authority and power at the
expense of the rights and freedom of citizens or the sovereignty of the nation-states. It was not
implemented to become a second legislative body under the Constitution. It was not
implemented to make decisions or issue orders negating nation-state legislation and, thus,
unconstitutionally authorizing and empowering the federal government to subvert the
sovereignty of the nation-states. It was not implemented for the purpose of engaging in mental
gymnastics to support the efforts of the federal government to subvert the Constitution.

The federal judiciary was supposed to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States
through ensuring that the rights and freedom of the citizens were not interfered with by the
federal government's actions. It was supposed to protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States through ensuring that the sovereignty of the nation-states was not infringed upon
by the actions of the federal government. It was supposed to protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States through ensuring that the federal government operated within the limitations
and restrictions imposed upon it by the citizens through the Constitution. It has wholly and
miserably failed to do its job.

11 of 18
• It is a limiting document in that the limits and restrictions imposed upon the federal
Judiciary permit the citizens to resist any unconstitutional intrusion of that branch, or
any approval of the same by that branch, into the sovereignty of the nations or the
rights and freedom of the citizens.

The constitutional test of legality is simple. It is a three-part test, as set forth above, and where
any act or legislation of the federal government is determined by that test to be unconstitutional,
then the act or legislation is unenforceable as a matter of law and it is the duty – ethically,
morally and legally - of the citizens and nation-states to oppose that act or law with the use of
that force necessary to prevent the federal government from continuing the act or enforcing such
law. The amount of force which may be required is determined solely by the federal government
and its willingness to return to operating within the limits and restrictions imposed upon it by the
Constitution. Where that government refuses to do so, the citizens are ethically, morally and
legally obligated to force the government into compliance or the citizens will cause their
children's, children's, children to suffer the consequences.

Should any determination, decision or order of a federal court judge fail the constitutionality test,
the same ethical, moral and legal obligations are imposed upon the citizens. They are not to obey
that judge. They are not to submit to that judge or any of his minions sent to force compliance
with the judge's determination, decision or order. Should those sent by the judge attempt to use
physical force, then they are, in fact, aiding and abetting the rebellion of the judge against the
citizens. Therefore, the citizens are empowered to use that amount of force necessary to repel the
attempt to physically force them to comply with the unconstitutional determination, decision or
order of that federal judge.

Additionally, it is the moral and legal duty of the nation, as a whole, in which that citizen resides
to stand between the federal government and the citizen(s) against whom that government is
attempting to unconstitutionally enforce the dictate of a rebellious judge. Should the citizen
request, or it be deemed that the citizen requires, the assistance of his nation to repel the efforts
of the federal judge to physically force compliance with an unlawful dictate, the nation is
obligated to step forward and interpose its own military or law enforcement personnel between
the citizen(s) and the federal government's agents.

• It is a limiting document in that the federal Judiciary is intended to exercise its

constitutional authority and power to halt the unconstitutional exercise of power and
authority by the other branches of that government.

Among the purposes of the federal judiciary is that of being responsible for curbing and ending
federal practices and laws which are outside the limitations and restrictions imposed on that
government by the Constitution of the United States. It was designed and created so as to operate
to exercise constitutionally mandated judicial authority and power over the other branches of the
federal government to prevent those branches from operating illegally. To do so requires that the
federal judiciary have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the unmitigated gall and outright
contempt of the members of the other two branches for the Constitution.

12 of 18
The failure of the federal judiciary to carry out its constitutional mandate has directly resulted in
an accelerated effort by the other two branches of that government in their efforts to outdo each
other in the destruction of the rights and freedom of the citizens and the sovereignty of the
nation-states.

• It is a limiting document in that the federal Judiciary has no authority or power to

interfere with the rights and freedom of citizens or the sovereignty of the nations by
virtue of their judicial decisions.

The rule of the Constitution is the rule of law, for all laws of the United States are founded upon,
and measured against, the permissions, limitations and restrictions imposed by that document. In
other words, all laws are to be held up to the Constitution for examination and tested. Should a
law fail the constitutionality test (the three-pronged test previously mentioned), then it is to be
abandoned until such time as it may pass. Should it pass the test, then it is to be enacted by the
Executive and supported by the Judiciary.

However, there are many laws which fail to pass the test and, regardless, are implemented by the
federal government with the full panoply of the might of that government behind the
enforcement of that illegal legislation. Such tyrannical and dictatorial actions on the part of the
federal government are to be slapped down as hard as possible by the federal judiciary and where
that branch fails to act to stop or prevent such usurpations, the citizens suffer the consequences
through the loss of their wealth, their property, their freedom and, sometimes, their very lives
(anyone recall the Branch Dividians or Ruby Ridge?).

• It is a limiting document in that, although it lists a number of individual rights it admits

that it does not exhaustively list all rights of the individual.

We have within the Constitution a list of the rights of citizens. It is commonly referred to as the
Bill of Rights. However, the bill of rights is not exhaustive in that it does not list all of the rights
of citizens of the Union. For example, the Bill of Rights does not specify the right to privacy, yet,
no sane person would argue or agree that the federal government, because it is the federal
government, has the right to violate one's privacy just because it so chooses or publicly claims
that such a violation is necessary to its proper operation under the Constitution.

It stands to reason among true patriots, therefore, that where the Constitution lists certain and
specific rights and states that there are others not listed, the federal government cannot stand on
the argument that those not listed do not exist, are open to interpretation by the federal
government or are of such a nature so as not to be as important as those that are listed. To accept
such an argument is to accept that the federal government is authorized and empowered to
determine which rights it will hold sacrosanct and which it will trash, according to its own
counsel.

Those rights which are not listed, as opposed to those which are, are also protected by the
limitations and restrictions imposed on the federal government by the Constitution. They are so

13 of 18
protected by requiring the federal government to stay within those limitations and restrictions
and to not stray from them. No matter what the federal government seeks to do, they are not
permitted, regardless of the lying intent or false justification put forward, to interfere with the
rights and freedom of citizens. Period. Therefore, the authority and powers referenced in the
Constitution which are not delegated to the federal government are referred to as reserved to the
citizens. Being reserved, they are not authorities and powers which the federal government is
constitutionally permitted to exercise. Not being permitted to exercise reserved authority and
power is intended to restrain the federal government from interfering with the rights and freedom
of citizens. Regrettably, the federal government is no longer held to the constitutional standard.

• It is a limiting document in that it specifically withholds from the federal government

any and all authority not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution.

Reserved authority and power, under the Constitution, belongs to the citizens, some of which
they have delegated to the nation-states, some of which they still retain in themselves.
Regardless, those not specifically delegated to the federal government are not within the purview
of the federal government. Where the federal government declares that it will operate outside the
limitations and restrictions imposed upon it, that government is usurping authority and power it
has not been delegated. It is invading the authority and power of the citizens in order to steal
reserved authority and power for its own, tyrannical purposes.

There is no question that the federal government is limited in its authority and power by the
Constitution. For those who claim otherwise, the question arises as to whether the federal
government has the authority to determine how a citizen will vote. If those who support the
usurpations of the federal government accept that it cannot determine the vote of citizens, then
those supporters agree that there are limitations and restrictions on the federal government. If, on
the other hand, they agree that the federal government may determine how citizens vote, then
they are supporting something other than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

• It is a limiting document in that it specifically grants to the national governments and

the citizens all authority and power not delegated to the federal government.

Limiting and restricting the authority and power of the federal government requires that those
duties and tasks not specified to be performed by the federal government for “the common good”
of the citizens of the Union requires that there be a responsible authority to exercise the power to
perform those duties and tasks at some level. The next level upward in government is the
national governments of the various nation-states comprising the Union. They are responsible for
exercising that authority and power restricted to the geographical, cultural and societal bounds
within their respective nations which has been delegated to them by their own citizens. The
exercise of that authority and power is not to spill over into neighboring nation-states, but is
restricted, just as the federal government, to only that area over which the nation-state
government exercises jurisdiction and only within the limits and restrictions imposed on that
government by its citizens.

14 of 18
It is not a duty or task delegated to the federal government to determine whether the citizens of a
specific locality will pay for medical care for illegal aliens. Where a particular nation-state has
determined that it is a decision to be made by the citizens of that nation-state as to whether to pay
such expenses, it is legitimately within the purview of that nation-state's authority and power to
permit localities within the nation-state to determine, on their own, whether they will or will not
do so. Such is a decision to be made by those residing within that jurisdiction. If they so choose,
they are ethically, morally and legally entitled to deny such payment just as they are equally
entitled to grant it. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to mandate
such payment regardless of what the local citizens determine in their own voting and regardless
of what those in the federal government “feel” is the “right” decision to make.

• It is a limiting document in that it requires the federal government to obtain the

approval of the sovereign nations and citizens of this Union, prior to the federal
government being delegated any authority and power not specified in the Constitution,
through the process of amendment.

The federal government is not free to exercise whatever authority and power it chooses whenever
it so chooses. Should that government determine that it requires the authority and power to
exercise additional duties and tasks that are not specified in the Constitution, then it is incumbent
upon that government to initiate the amendment process in order to obtain the sought after
authority and power. Failing to do so was intended as a block to the federal government
exercising that authority and power.

The amendment process was intentionally created to be slow so as to permit the citizens the time
necessary to fully understand and discuss the ramifications of any delegation of additional
authority and power to the federal government. During the course of this process, the federal
government is not constitutionally authorized or empowered to exercise those duties and tasks
not yet delegated to it under the Constitution.

For the federal government to exercise any authority and power not delegated in the
Constitution, or added to it through the amendment process, is rebellion against the sovereign
authority of the citizens.

• It is a limiting document in that any authority and power exercised by any branch of
the federal government which has not been delegated to it by the citizens, is
unconstitutional and the citizens have the reserved right, as well as the ethical and
moral duty, to aid and assist those against whom the exercise of that extra-
constitutional authority and power are directed.

Absent the amendment process any authority and power exercised by the federal government
which is not delegated to it under the Constitution is illegal as a matter of law. Therefore, any
exercise of such authority and power is ethically, morally and legally to be rejected by the
citizens and the nation-states. Where such unconstitutional authority and power is being

15 of 18
exercised by the federal government the citizens have the reserved right and duty – ethically,
morally and legally – to not only resist such authority and power, but to aid all others in their
resistance to the exercise of such unconstitutional authority and power. Such aid is not
unconstitutional nor is it ethically or morally wrong. However, it may be illegal in the eyes of the
federal government, but that does not make it truly illegal, since the overthrow of a tyrannical
government is described within the Declaration of Independence as a duty. It raises the question
of how the federal government can make any duty illegal.

• It is a limiting document in that any authority and power claimed and exercised by the
federal government which was not delegated to it by the nations and the citizens,
through the process of amendment, is of no force and effect, whatsoever, and the
citizens have the reserved right, as well as the moral duty, to resist the exercise of that
unlawful authority and power by any means they deem appropriate.

Any illegal law is unenforceable. Any law which does not survive the three-pronged test of
constitutionality is illegal. Period. Any exercise of authority or power by the federal government
which is not delegated to that government by the Constitution, including the enactment and
passage of bills disguised as legitimate laws, is unconstitutional, which makes them illegal and,
therefore, unenforceable as a matter of law.

It is the duty – ethically, morally and legally - of all citizens to resist the illegal actions of their
governments – local, state and federal – and such was stated in the Declaration of Independence.
For when a government usurps authority and power which it has not been granted by its citizens
it is no longer a servant of the citizens, but a tyrant intent on enslaving the very citizens who
established that government.

Because of the intent of the federal government to enslave the citizens and their progeny, and
incrementally strip them of their rights and freedom, it is the ethical, moral and legal duty of true
patriots to resist that government in every possible manner.

• It is a limiting document in that should the federal government fail to perform the
common duties specified, therein, through the constitutional exercise of the authority
and power delegated to it by the citizens, then those very citizens who control that
federal government have the reserved right, the legal authority, and the moral duty, to
replace that government with a government which will adhere to the requirements of
those citizens.

There are consequences for our actions. There is a penalty for illegal actions. Such a penalty is
imposed on any citizen who breaks the law through the issuance of jail or prison sentences as
well as fines and court costs. But what about the federal government? Is it free of any
consequences for its illegal acts, because it is a government entity and not an individual? Not at
all. The Declaration of Independence finally put in writing what men had been arguing for
centuries – where a government fails to perform its duties (in this case, remaining within the
limitations and restrictions of the Constitution) it is subject to overthrow by the citizens. The

16 of 18
question then becomes, who determines that the federal government is no longer operating
legally?

If it is accepted, as some argue, that individuals have no authority to act against the government
when it exceeds its delegated authority and power, then at what point are the citizens permitted to
act? The plural is used here, because if an individual is not permitted to act, then it must be
presumed that at some point more than one citizen is so permitted to act. What is that magic
number? What is the number for critical mass? Is it ten? Maybe 10,000? What about 300,000?
All arbitrary numbers to be sure, but the point is that there is no specific number. There is no law
- ethically, morally or codified - dictating the number of citizens required to agree to act to put a
stop to the excesses and abuses of the federal government.

Regardless of any law passed by the federal government to the contrary, the Declaration of
Independence declares it the duty of the true patriotic citizen to overthrow their government
when it becomes tyrannical. Can there be any question that this federal government is tyrannical?

• It is a limiting document in that the very existence of the federal government is limited
to its strict performance of the common duties specified in, and adherence to the
limitations imposed upon it by, the Constitution of the United States; and, that should it
fail to accomplish both, then the citizens of this Union are bound by their reserved,
ethical, moral and legal duty to exercise their right to replace that government with a
government which will abide by their determinations and they may do so in any
manner they deem most appropriate and advantageous to their situation.

It is fascinating to hear people argue that the federal government has the authority to do as it will,
when it will, how it will and then hear those same people claim vociferously that they are patriots
(Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid anybody?). These are the very same people who
insist that the federal government must “be about the business of the people” and such includes
determining what is “the common good” for the purpose of establishing what is best for the
people! These are the very same people who dismiss those of us who demand that they restrain
their interference in our personal lives and claim that they do so only for “the common good.”
These are the very same people who compromise their own beliefs in order to enrich themselves
and retain their personal power, authority, position and influence.

What these very same people fail to publicly acknowledge is that the existence of the federal
government is solely dependent upon its strict performance of the duties and tasks delegated to it
in the Constitution and its operation within the limitations and restrictions imposed by that
document. Additionally, they refuse to publicly acknowledge that their positions within that
government were bestowed upon them by the citizens of their respective nation-states, not by the
federal government.

The federal government, in the persons of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches,
having wholly failed, and adamantly refusing, to comply with the performance standards
established by the Constitution of the United States and the limitations and restrictions imposed

17 of 18
upon its exercise of the delegated authority and power granted to it for the purpose of conducting
its lawful operations, has declared itself to be in rebellion against the sovereign authority of the
citizens of this Union. This declaration may be witnessed in the refusal of government agents and
agencies to comply with the requirements of the Constitution in regard to the rights and freedom
of citizens; of federal agencies and departments invading the sovereignty of the nation-states on a
constant basis; of federal courts refusing to hold the federal government liable for its illegal
activities; of illegal legislation and activities of the Congress going unchallenged by the other
two branches; and, with the absolute, unmitigated arrogance of those elected officials who refuse
to comply with either the Constitution or the will of their constituents.

No matter what any government lackey may say; no matter what any federal judge may rule; no
matter how indignant any elected official may act – no citizen of this Union has ceded his or her
right to compel the federal government to operate within constitutional boundaries. All citizens,
by virtue of their living within the boundaries of this Union, are morally obligated to force the
government to return to its intended purpose and functions and to cease operating outside those
limitations and restrictions. All citizens are legally obligated to act in such a manner so as to
protect the rights and freedom of their fellow citizens and the future citizens of this Union. How
citizens are to do so is a choice they have an ethical, moral and legal right to make for
themselves.

If there are citizens who choose to operate against the federal government by the use of force,
they have the ethical, moral and legal right to do so. If there are those citizens who choose to
support the operations of other citizens against the federal government, they too, have the ethical,
moral and legal right to do so. If there are those citizens who choose to support the operations of
other citizens by simply refusing to support or assist the federal government, they are equally
within their ethical, moral and legal rights.

Be a patriot – do something!

Francis Marion
November, 2009

18 of 18