Tag Archives: Unconstitutional

Federal Judge May Declare Pot’s Classification As Schedule 1 Narcotic Unconstitutional

Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California just made some comments in court that signal that she might be preparing to declare marijuana’s classification as a Schedule 1 narcotic unconstitutional. According to Reuters, defense attorneys representing nine California men who are accused of illegally growing medical marijuana on federal land argued before Judge Mueller that the charges should be thrown out under the rationale that federal medical marijuana prohibition is unconstitutional.

In a hearing on Wednesday, Judge Mueller indicated that she is seriously considering the merits of the defense’s position and said to prosecutors, “If I were persuaded by the defense’s argument, if I bought their argument, what would you lose here?” At stake is whether or not the federal government has overstepped its bounds in declaring marijuana a Schedule 1 narcotic, which categorizes it as one of the deadliest drugs and as having no medical use.

The defendants in the criminal case are facing a $10 million fine, property seizure, and up to life in prison for what their lawyers characterized as an effort to cultivate medical marijuana for people in need of treatment. During the defense team’s closing arguments on a motion to throw out the charges, defense attorney Zenia Gilg said, “It’s impossible to say that there is no accepted medical use.” The defense team also pointed out the facts that 23 US states have already legalized marijuana for medical use and that Congress recently voted to block the Department of Justice from interfering in state-level efforts to legalize medical pot.

Assistant US Attorney Gregory Broderick, a prosecutor in the case, argued that Congress, rather than a judge, should determine whether marijuana belongs on Schedule 1. However, he stopped short of arguing that it does, saying, “We’re not saying that this is the most dangerous drug in the world. All we’re saying is that the evidence is such that reasonable people could disagree.” Meanwhile, he says the defendants should face punishment for growing medical pot on federal land as federal law still bans such activity. Despite the facts that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms and that many business owners rely on firearms to protect valuable merchandise, Broderick cited the men’s status as firearms owners as evidence that their marijuana grow operation was not for medical use. He said, “They had weapons. These guys were not producing medicine.”

The hearing included testimony by doctors as to whether marijuana is useful for medical purposes, which prompted Broderick to admit in comments cited by The Leaf Online, “If Congress heard all the testimony you have heard in this hearing, they may very well decide not to put marijuana in Schedule I.” However, he stood firm in his argument that Judge Mueller lacked the authority to rule on the issue, which he said should fall in the hands of Congress instead.

The Leaf Online‘s Jeremy Daw wrote, “Judge Mueller, who has already scheduled nearly a week of court time to the hearing, did not give any indication of sympathy to [Broderick’s] position,” noting that she did appear to give some pause to the notion that “Broderick’s argument that even if she could properly hear the case, the ultimate outcome is irrelevant” had “more credence.”

Judge Mueller said that she would consider the motion to drop the charges and issue a written ruling within 30 days.

In September of last year, Ben Swann released an expose on the federal government’s mixed messages on medical marijuana, as it holds the patent on medical cannabis while also declaring that it has no medical use. Watch it in the embedded video player, seen below.

Federal Court: Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Is Unconstitutional

Yesterday, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals made a landmark decision regarding police access to cell phone tower tracking data. The Guardian is reporting by way of the Associated Press that, while ruling on the Miami armed robbery case of Quartavious Davis, a panel of three judges from the court decided that law enforcement officers must attain a judge’s warrant before seizing cell phone tower data that could be used to track a suspect’s movements. The ruling however was not used to overturn Davis’ conviction, as judges allowed a good faith exemption, since the ruling happened afterward, and law enforcement officers would not have been able to rely on it during the investigation.

Attorneys at various levels of government have long argued that individuals surrender their privacy rights by using a cell phone provided by a third-party company. However, consumer cell phone agreements respect users’ privacy in terms of the personal data stored through such services. The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that warrantless cell phone tracking violates the Fourth Amendment, arguing that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the details of their movements from place to place.

Cell phone tower data can be used to determine a significant amount of information about an individual. Details about one’s movements could be used to identify a person’s social relationships, business arrangements, religious beliefs, and other interests which are within the expectation of privacy. According to the ruling, law enforcement officers can attain such data during the course of an investigation, but only with a judge’s warrant after demonstrating probable cause.

This is the first time that a federal-level court has ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking in the context of a criminal case. The decision only applies to the 11th Circuit at the present time, which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. A nationwide policy change would likely require a decision by the Supreme Court.

This follows the 2012 Supreme Court decision United States v. Jones in which justices ruled that the placement of a GPS device on an individual’s car is considered a type of search under the Fourth Amendment. The judges in the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals referenced that decision in their comments on the case.

Law enforcement officers often seek cell phone tower data in an effort to determine whether or not a suspect was near the scene of a crime at the time that it was committed, as cell signals bounce off of nearby towers, leaving pings which constitute a “footprint” of the user’s movements. However, under this new ruling, investigators must acquire a personalized warrant from now on in order to attain such information in the states of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.

LOTFI: Who actually “owns” America’s land? A deeper look at the Bundy Ranch crisis

NEVADA, April 12, 2014– Turtles and cows have absolutely no relevance to the situation in Nevada. Does the Constitution make  provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….

Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.

It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land. Article IV deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.

Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.

The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.

The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these enumerated powers.

Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings– (Emphasis added).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislatures to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more. 

State permission being a requirement, state authority was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase land from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, or any other state. Unless, of course, the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.

If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.

In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government can only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislatures formally grant the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).

However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation.  Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.

Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.

With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911),  Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.

Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds– for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.

What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).

In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.

Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.

Federal Court: Entire NSA Program Unconstitutional

NSA Spying

UPDATE #1: Federal Judge rules Friday December 27, 2013 that NSA spying legal

By Michael Lotfi,

Judge Leon of the DC District Court has held that the NSA’s bulk data collection of telephony metadata violates the Fourth Amendment and has enjoined the entire program- stayed pending appeal. The ruling came hours ago.

Leon said, “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval. Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.”

According to Leon, the plaintiffs have a very strong case pursuant to NSA Fourth Amendment violations. However, the ruling has been stayed pending appeal to the DC Circuit Court. This means no immediate action will be taken. The federal government will appeal this case to the Circuit Court. One may also expect the case to eventually reach the Supreme Court before a final disposition is handed down.

The government argued that special circumstances warranted the NSA’s spying. In the Court opinion Leon wrote, “No Court has ever recognized a special need sufficient to justify continuous, daily searches of virtually every American citizen without any particularized suspicion.”

This Court ruling equates to winning a battle. The war goes on.

You may read the entire filing bellow.

Follow Michael Lotfi On Facebook & Twitter: @MichaelLotfi


DC District Court Rules NSA Surveillance Unconstitutional.

Exclusive: Public Officials Admit They Have Been Scamming Citizens At Red Light Cameras (VIDEO)


Citizens in counties around the country have taken their cases to court when it comes to red light cameras. More often than not, the cameras are found to be unconstitutional. When a driver currently gets a ticket from a red light camera in the city of Murfreesboro, TN, the tickets warn that if payment is not received then the driver registered to that vehicle will lose their license, be reported to the credit bureau, which will negatively impact their credit, and have points issued against their insurance.

However, according to the most recent city council hearing, none of that is true. Tennessee state law, as well as city ordinances, prohibit such action being taken against motorists. The tickets that motorists receive in the mail are essentially making false threats in an attempt to bully them into paying fines that they actually do not have to pay.

According to a group called Citizens Against Photo Enforcement (CAPE) it’s time for the cameras to go, and this new evidence proves the point. A CAPE co-founder provided us with the following statement:

“Despite the fact that the city council decided to continue the automated camera system for one more year, we consider yesterday’s council meeting a tremendous success. One year ago when we originally discussed organizing opposition to the cameras, it was almost certain they were going to double the amount of cameras in our city as well as possibly add speed enforcement cameras. In this current decision, they have decided to only maintain the existing camera infrastructure and not expand the system. There was also healthy questioning to Police Chief Chrisman about the effectiveness of the system that was not present in the past. Most important, the council acknowledged publicly that despite the tickets directly threatening the loss of one’s license and reflecting negatively on one’s credit report, they cannot take any substantial action against those who choose not to pay and simply ignore the ticket. This is because under Tennessee State Law, automated traffic cameras which issue tickets cannot issue moving violations. Because of this, they cannot reflect this on your driving history nor report this charge to a credit agency. In the words of Murfreesboro City Councilman Eddie Smotherman whom was the only one who voted no to continue the contract, paying a ticket in the current system is little more than a complimentary payment.”

The group plans to continue their fight to stop the red light cameras, and say that the new evidence from the council hearing has state-wide implications.

Follow Michael Lotfi On Twitter: @MichaelLotfi 

The Supreme Court Should Not Kill Obamacare: A Tea Party Perspective


Ocare2Some call me a conservative, some call me a libertarian & some call me a tea party member. I call myself a “conservatarian” (you can use it if you want). Regardless, there is something that needs to be known. It’s something the pundits of the left and right regularly ignore. Those who embrace it, are often accused of “neoconfederacy”, or my favorite “racism”. I’m talking about State rights. It’s odd that opponents of State rights who cry “racist!” regularly cite the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare. It seems they forget that the same court ruled African Americans were not human, but property in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

You see, it makes little sense to vest much value in Supreme Court decisions made after 1803. The Supreme Court has not ruled within its constitutional jurisdiction since Chief Justice John Marshall gave the majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison. In this case, Chief Justice John Marshall unconstitutionally expanded the power of the Court to rule on cases, which would apply to the entire country. This was not the original intent of the Supreme Court of the United States. Every case ruled on since then is null and void. Even so, it’s imperative to remember that the Court issues opinions, not decrees.

We know that America was founded on compact theory. This is made crystal clear by Madison, the father of the Constitution, when he drafted the Report of 1800. Compact theory dictates that the states compose the country. These states explicitly grant the federal government its power. Compact theory also sets the paradigm that the State has the authority to dictate whether or not a federal law is constitutional. If you asked Americans on the street today they would most likely tell you the opposite is true.

All that build up for what? Well, why wait for the Supreme Court to strike down the law? There are multiple cases making their way to the SCOTUS, which very well may cripple Obamacare. However, if we are a nation of principled citizens we should not rely on these Supreme Court opinions regardless of how they sway. As I said before, the SCOTUS is operating outside of its jurisdiction.

Individual states have the power to nullify Obamacare, if they so choose to take that path. However, there is another way the law can also be killed.

Let us consider that only 17 states are running their own health care exchange under the Patient Care Act (PCA). Another 26 are leaving it completely up to the feds, and the remaining few are doing a joint exchange. Now, in this case, it may seem that more states have opted for greater government control. Not so, because of text of the PCA states who opted for the federal exchange are actually on their way to opting out of Obamacare. This is why essentially every state run by republicans opted for the federal exchange. Many states are now in the process of trying to kill the medicaid expansion under Obamacare. If successful, with a few more steps, these states have effectively nullified Obamacare. These states are now in a stronger position to move on to the next phase–

Next, let us consider how many states are run by republicans. Democrats only have complete legislative control over 17 states. Also, they could soon be losing Virginia, as the gubernatorial race between McAuliffe (D), Cuccinelli (R) and Sarvis (L) tightens. A recent poll shows Sarvis dropping 1 point, and McAuliffe/Cuccinelli in a statistical tie.

Regardless of that race, republican ran states are on the rise. Since Obama took office, republican governors have taken over 9 states. If the trend continues, republicans will continue to gain ground in the states. Also, libertarian candidates are taking the field with relatively impressive results.

Given time, it’s more than possible that the magic number 38 could be reached. What is this number? It’s the number required for a constitutional amendment. If republican and libertarian state representatives, senators and governors held to the principles, which they claim are of their core convictions, then a constitutional  amendment could be achieved. Such an amendment would block the healthcare law across the board. More so, the path of constitutional amendment is one of maintained principle.

An amendment most likely isn’t the answer though. The federal government doesn’t listen to the Constitution we have today, so there is little warrant to believe an amendment would suffice. Nullification is likely the rightful remedy.

Although I do not agree with Obamacare, I would not support the Supreme Court striking it down. Why? Because, in doing so, the Supreme Court continues to act outside of its constitutionally delegated authority. With this avenue, it is only a matter of time until someone with differing values tries to impose those values onto the rest of the country. Again, this was never the intended purpose of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court opinions are not the “law of the land”. The Constitution is the law of the land. Madison, the father of the Constitution, has explicitly defined for us that the Constitution restrains the federal government through avenue of the people composing the states. The states give the federal government its power. The inverse is the greatest modern fallacy America faces.

The founders have given us a principled avenue to resolve overbearing federal government power. It is of paramount importance that Americans rediscover their resolve for true freedom. However, this resolve must be rooted in principle. It must not rely upon those who act without principle. If we simply rely on the Supreme Court we will lose. Whether the law is struck down or upheld is of no importance. The Supreme Court should have never been allowed to rule on the legislation in the first place and therefore we should not look to the problem for a solution.

OPINION: Follow Michael Lotfi on Twitter: @MichaelLotfi

Obama, Reid & Pelosi Are The Anarchists


“We’re diverted totally from what this bill is about. Why? Because the anarchists have taken over. They’ve taken over the House and now they’ve taken over the Senate. People who don’t believe in government — and that’s what the Tea Party is all about — are winning, and that’s a shame,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor only weeks ago. (emphasis added)

His claims of anarchy were then echoed by many in the democratic caucus. Reid cites that because the SCOTUS upheld Obamacare it is the “law of the land” now and republicans should bow down.

I would remind Harry Reid that democratic federalists also sought to ensure slavery was upheld by the SCOTUS as the “law of the land” and it was only until republicans fought tooth and nail did that change. Furthermore, the SCOTUS upheld that African Americans were property and not humans. In retrospect, perhaps we should really take what the SCOTUS says with a grain of salt seeing as how Chief Justice John Marshall singularly gave the SCOTUS powers it was never intended to have in the first place in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison. Not to mention that Justice Marshall, on more than one occasion, created cases outside of the Court so that they would eventually reach his newly created jurisdiction so he could rule in favor of more central government- thus making his hand crafted cases the “law of the land”.

Justice Marshall, a federalist who wanted a massive central government, acted above the law to create a Supreme Court, which acts above the law. Acting above the law is also known as anarchy.

Back to Harry Reid. Okay, the SCOTUS upheld Obamacare. Then why don’t Reid, Pelosi and Obama just uphold the law of the land? Democrats scream, “Well what do you think they’re trying to do!” No.

Law-of-the-land-Obamacare says nothing about the IRS having authority re-write the healthcare law, which is unconstitutional since only Congress can create and change laws. Yet, the IRS re-wrote the law anyways. Obama has bailed out his huge corporate sponsors giving them deadline exemptions. Law-of-the-land-Obamacare says nothing about the president’s corporate sponsors getting exemptions.  Law-of-the-land-Obamacare also says that members of Congress will lose their subsidy. That didn’t stop above-the-law-of-the-land-Obama from holding secret meetings to give Congress their exemption from law-of-the-land-Obamacare.  In fact, the very act of the SCOTUS declaring Obamacare a tax by rewriting the law was unconstitutional, as only Congress can make laws.

Democrats having been screaming that America will default because of the “republican shutdown”. That is simply a lie. For one, there’s plenty of money coming in to pay creditors. Second, if America did default it would simply be because above-the-law-of-the-land-Obama decided to act above the Constitution in an act of political theater. Sections 4 & 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly make default unconstitutional as detailed by Robin Koerner.

Lois-above-the-law-of-the-land-Lerner illegally targeted tea party groups under the Obama administration’s direction. She’s now quietly retired with a $50,000/year tax payer funded pension. Pretty sweet deal for an anarchist.

Hillary-above-the-law-of-the-land-Clinton simply stepped down from her position as Secretary of State and will probably win the 2016 democratic nominee for president after the Benghazi tragedy. No jail time, no fine, not even a pink-slip. Another sweet deal for an anarchist.

The list goes on.

You see, it’s really quite the contrary. The tea party, libertarian wing of the Republican party are actually the ones seeking to uphold the law-of-the-land known as the Constitution. A nation of laws is one where Americans prosper. America does not, and has not prospered in this nation of anarchist men, who consistently rule themselves above the law.




If a group of Indiana school districts have their way Obamacare will be heading  back to the Supreme Court. According to a local Indiana Fox station, in total, 15 school districts have filed a joint lawsuit against President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

The suit takes aim at multiple defendants including the IRS, the Department of the Treasury and the USDHHS. The state of Indiana is the lead plaintiff.

Bose McKinney & Evans LLP is representing schools in the lawsuit. Indiana Attorney Greg Zoeller will represent the state.

School corporations involved in the lawsuit include:

  • Benton Community School Corporation
  • Community School Corporation of Eastern Hancock County
  • John Glenn School Corporation
  • Madison Consolidated Schools
  • Metropolitan School District of Martinsville
  • Monroe-Gregg School District
  • Mooresville Consolidated School Corporation
  • North Lawrence Community Schools
  • Northwestern Consolidated School District of Shelby County
  • Perry Central Community Schools
  • Shelbyville Central Schools
  • South Henry School Corporation
  • Southwest Parke Community School Corporation
  • Southwestern Jefferson County Consolidated School Corporation
  • Vincennes Community School Corporation

Indiana actually joins Oklahoma with regard to states currently filing lawsuits against the legislation. The defendants cite that the ACA employer mandate imposes significant penalties on employers who fail to provide all of their full-time workers with minimum coverage. The suit claims that the penalties would result in catastrophic financial consequences.

To avoid these penalties the school districts have cuts hours eliminating full-time positions. The lawsuit challenges new IRS regulations (similar to Oklahoma’s lawsuit). In addition, the Indiana lawsuit questions the constitutionality of the federal government imposing a federal mandate on the state of Indiana and public schools.

If successful in moving through appeals in lesser courts the two cases will make their way to the Supreme Court. Oklahoma has already made a major jump through the process.


Obamacare Is Not A Law: It’s A New Three Letter Agency

After watching the Patient Care Act (PCA), better known as Obamacare,  in action over the past couple years one thing is becoming clear. It’s not a law. Sure, Congress may have passed it as a law, and the president signed it as a law. However, when you review its implementation it doesn’t resemble a law at all.PCA

We are a nation of laws, not of men. This meaning that the law applies equally to all. There are no exceptions for this group, or that group. Well, Obamacare does not work in such a manner. If Obamacare was a law then the idea of the IRS union seeking an exemption would have never come to bear fruit. The IRS union wasn’t alone in their request. If fact, three of the country’s largest labor unions wrote a joint letter to Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) saying that the healthcare bill would be catastrophic and they wanted an exemption. To be fair, the administration rejected the unions’ request. However, the very idea that it was even on the table is strikingly parallel to how the IRS will deny or approve tax exempt status of organizations. How long until someone gets an exemption from the law? Turns out- not too long at all.

Like it, or not the law was passed as written. Obama, acting in secret, as if he was head of such an agency, allowed congressional members and their staffs an exemption. To be clear,  they are not completely exempt from Obamacare. However, as of now, taxpayers pay almost 75 percent of premium payments for Congress as part of government employee benefits in Washington. An amendment to the healthcare law could have ended that subsidy. Instead of actually legislatively fixing the law so that Congress could maintain their subsidy, Obama simply issued an exemption from the amendment. However, the amendment still remains law.

Another example of how Obamacare is operating as an agency, and not a law is when Obama had the IRS get involved to “change the law”. Obamacare was passed by Congress- not the IRS. This would imply that only Congress can make changes to the law. However, that didn’t stop President Obama from going to the IRS when he realized that Senate democrats made a glaring mistake when drafting the law.

Under Obamacare states were given the option to decide whether or not they wanted to set up an insurance exchange, which each state would run. Those states who choose not to set up their own insurance exchange would have a federal exchange set up in its place. States that did choose to set up an exchange are to fine employers who  do not provide insurance under the employer-mandate penalty. This money is then returned to the employees to purchase insurance through the state run exchange.

So far more than two dozen states have opted out of the state exchange. Tennessee, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma to name a few. President Obama and democratic leadership failed to add this same penalty to states who opt-out of the state exchange in place of the federal exchange. Therefore, the dozens of states that have already opted out cannot be fined under the employer-mandate penalty. This would have left Obamacare in  shambles.

So, Obama went to the IRS and had them re-write the healthcare law. However, this is unconstitutional. Only Congress can make such changes to law. A lawsuit has been making its way to the Supreme Court  filed by the state of Oklahoma challenging this illegal power grab. Parallel to how the EPA can essentially create their own laws, Obamacare is doing the same.

Not convinced yet? Let’s look at how many delays have been passed out. First big business got a huge exemption. The Employer Shared Responsibility (ESR) provisions have been delayed until Jan.1, 2015. Next, small businesses were issued a short delay only two weeks ago. However, the law clearly sets dates. No where in the law are delays allowed. Acting above the law, the Obama administration handed out delays anyways.

Obamacare does not behave like a law at all. In fact, it behaves quite more so like an agency. It arbitrarily enforces parts it does and does not like, delays dates and even creates new laws from within itself. Why is this such a big deal? One only need look at any 3-letter agency to see how monstrous, unconstitutional,  expensive and intrusive they’ve all become since their well-intended creation.

The FDA arrests people for trading raw milk. The EPA throws people in jail for the rest of their lives for moving soil from one corner of their yard to another. The DEA throws thousands of people in jail every year for victimless crimes. The TSA sexually harasses  us on a daily basis. The DOE tells our children what to think, eat, wear, how to brush their teeth and who to have sex with. Now it seems that we can add the PCA to the list of 3-letter agencies, which will arbitrarily create and manipulate laws (at will) without congressional, executive or judicial oversight. The 3-letter agencies, or as I like to call them “the fourth branch of government”, just got a new power-player.

Truth be told, the PCA cannot simply be a “law”. Having studied in the medical field for 4 years and graduating with top honors I can tell you that I have paid attention, and that the science, and the market is far too convoluted to be confined by a simple law (regardless of how many pages it contains). For the PCA to actualize into any sort of relative success it will require an agency of its own, and the President is coming to realize this reality as evidenced by his actions listed above.

Colorado Citizens Seek to Nullify Unconstitutional Gun Control Laws


The nullification movement is sweeping across the nation and people are fighting for their Constitutional rights.  Nowhere is this truer than in Colorado.  After the controversial redistricting led to Democrats taking over both the State House and Senate in November 2012, an extreme liberal agenda was pushed at unprecedented speeds.


This included gun control, with laws such as universal background checks, which Ted Cruz has called a “pathway to a national gun registry.”  In addition, concealed carry training must now be done face-to-face rather than online, and anyone who has even been accused of domestic violence or is under a restraining order is now banned from using guns, whether guilty or not.

Unable to affect the outcome of traditional legislative battles, conservatives and liberty activists statewide started to look to alternative solutions.  While Weld County spearheaded a surprisingly popular initiative to split from Colorado, the first two recall elections in the state’s history were organized against Democrat Senators John Morse and Angela Giron.

Even on the small scale, citizens are taking actions to try to make a difference.  One of these is “Put it to the People,” founded by Tim LeVier and JT Davis.  This organization is circulating petitions to get a Constitutional Amendment on next fall’s ballot.  The amendment is intended to nullify one of the many gun control laws passed in the State Legislature in 2013.

House Bill 13-1224 limits the capacity of gun magazines to 15 rounds.  It also bans all magazines which are “readily convertible” to hold more than 15 rounds – such as any magazine with a detachable floor plate – meaning that nearly all magazines would be.  The bill also requires “continuous possession” of the magazines, meaning that selling, borrowing, giving or bequeathing such magazines is illegal.

A youtube video demonstrates how this law essentially includes most if not all magazines that are made in the U.S.

The same law prompted a lawsuit by most of the state’s sheriffs.  In response, Colorado-based magazine manufacturer Magpul also left the state, but not before it had organized a “Colorado Airlift,” in which it distributed thousands of high capacity magazines to Colorado residents in the months before the ban went into effect, meaning that those magazines would be grandfathered in.

LeVier and Davis’ proposed amendment reads “No law, except a law enacted by a vote of the people, shall restrict or limit the right of the people to purchase or possess ammunition storage and feeding devices of any capacity.”

The proposed initiative is a constitutional amendment because this would prevent the state legislature from simply re-passing the bill.  Both the U.S. Constitution and Colorado’s State Constitution contain stronger pro-gun rights language, though.

In addition to the Second Amendment, which reads that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” Colorado Constitution Article II Section 14 reads “that the right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herin contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”

Approached as a short-term solution to the problem, Put it to the People makes sense.  It would repeal one of the multiple heinous gun control laws passed in 2013 – though perhaps not the worst – and make it somewhat more difficult for such laws to pass in the future.  Instead of simply repealing the ban, the amendment contains some safeguards for the future.  With the rapid influx of people changing Colorado’s political landscape, though, this is unlikely to remain a deterrent to further legislation.

States throughout the nation are passing legislation that nullifies federal laws like N.D.A.A, voter ID laws, and other laws that states deem unconstitutional.

Tom Woods  says that the word “nullification” was introduced by Thomas Jefferson who stated that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers.”

Americans throughout the nation are using this legal mechanism and the principles of nullification to fight back government overreach.

Thumbnail 1
One of the largest gun rights group, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO), is encouraging its members and citizens to wear T-shirts that read, “I WILL NOT COMPLY,” in protest to the magazine ban.


They state on their website, “Stand in opposition to the draconian magazine ban in Colorado by sporting our “I Will Not Comply” t-shirt … this shirt lets anti-gun politicians know that you won’t forget their vote on this bill.”


This attempt to nullify the magazine ban is purely a grassroots initiative. From pro-gun groups like RMGO and two working fathers Tim LeVier and JT Davis in a Denver suburb, the movement is picking up support from people who care about their Constitutional rights.

To get on the ballot, the initiative needs 100,000 signatures by December 9th.  About 15% of those needed have already been collected as of this publication. See their website here.

One thing is clear, the nullification movement is alive and well in America today. And the 2nd Amendment is not something Americans are willing to give up without a fight. Colorado is going to have a hard time enforcing this ban if the People of the state feel differently.



Obamacare Might Be Heading Back To The Supreme Court: Unconstitutional

A little known secret about the President’s healthcare agenda began leaking a few months ago. The mainstream media has completely abandoned the issue, until recently. However, signs are beginning to point to hemorrhagic status as often times small leaks take up this route.ObamaWhat’s the secret? When crafting the legislation, democrats and the President made a huge mistake. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, states were given the option to decide whether or not they wanted to set up an insurance exchange, which each state would run. Those states who choose not to set up their own insurance exchange would have a federal exchange set up in its place. States that do choose to set up an exchange are to fine employers who  do not provide insurance under the employer-mandate penalty. This money is then returned to the employees to purchase insurance through the state run exchange.
Here’s the flaw. So far more than two dozen states have opted out of the state exchange. Tennessee, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma to name a few. President Obama and democratic leadership failed to add this same penalty to states who opt out of the state exchange in place of the federal exchange. Therefore, the dozens of states that have already opted out cannot be fined under the employer-mandate penalty. This would have left Obamacare in  shambles.

So, Obama went to the IRS and had them re-write the healthcare law. However, this is unconstitutional. Only Congress can make such changes to law. A lawsuit has been making its way to the Supreme Court  filed by the state of Oklahoma challenging this illegal power grab by the IRS.

I have been following this development for quite some time. Communications director for US Congressman Scott Desjalais (R-TN), Robert Jameson told me in an interview a couple months ago;

“They made a huge mistake here. Congressman Desjarlais will be taking action on the issue and watching it closely in the Supreme Court. If we are successful in upholding this as unconstitutional it will make the states who have opted out of the state run exchange very attractive to businesses who bring jobs and prosperity. It will also make Obamacare even more unsustainable than it already is, which will leave the door open to defunding it.”

Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma Attorney General, just took a major step forward in having his case heard by the Supreme Court. A federal judge in Okalahoma ruled last Monday that Oklahoma has the legal standing to sue the federal government over the subsidies in the federally run exchanges (see video above). This is the first time a federal judge has ruled against the Obama administration with regards to the Patient Care Act in quite some time. Opponents of the Patient Care Act will certainly keep a watchful eye as this story continues to develop.


Tell us what you think in the comments below-

Obama Bypassing Congress to Enact New Taxes

Obama is sidestepping Congress once again. This time, the unconstitutional act is in an effort to raise $6 Billion in new taxes to put WiFi in public schools across America. Rather than waste his time with the Constitution and Congress, Obama is going straight to the FCC to lobby for the new taxes. The new tax will apply to every American who uses a cellphone.

I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Candidate Barack Obama, 2008Obama shrug

Shhh… Never-mind that.

The proposal has gone mostly unnoticed. It was quietly introduced over the Summer under the name ConnectEd. The White House proposal specifically states:

Today, President Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to take the steps
necessary to build high-speed digital connections to America’s schools and libraries, ensuring
that 99 percent of American students can benefit from these advances in teaching and learning.
He is further directing the federal government to make better use of existing funds to get this
technology into classrooms, and into the hands of teachers trained on its advantages. And he is
calling on businesses, states, districts, schools and communities to support this vision.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly statesThe Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes. You will notice it does not say the President, or a regulatory board under the influence of the President. According to The Washington Post, republicans are vowing to ensure that the FCC does not create this new tax, which will certainly be disguised as a “fee”–not a tax. If the plan moves forward republicans plan to hold congressional hearings to persuade the FCC. However, the commission is headed by only 5 members. Two are democrats, one is republican and the other two are Obama nominees for the remaining open slots. The odd man out is not expected to have much pull.