>> i think we had the same editor. joanna graves. very nice woman. >> it's nice to meet you. >> this is book to be on c-span2. it is television for serious readers. here's a look at our primetime lineup for tonight. starting shortly you will hear from an author on what citizens can do to ensure their constitutional rights are protected. on "after words", at 9:00 p.m. eastern, republican strategist roger stone discusses the 2016 presidential election and donald trump's victory. then at 10:00 p.m., timothy tyson reinvestigate's the death of emmett hell. we wrap up our lineup at 11:30 p.m. with virginia former governor bill wilder.

that all happens tonight on c-span to book tv. first up, here is chris and hall [applause] >> i am jc, chris hall, chris is my wife. many of you know chris and. i don't know how many visitors we have that don't, but she is a native of st. louis missouri. she got her bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry from blackburn college in illinois. she joined the united states army, was trained trained as a russian linguist for military intelligence in the army, and, as most people know here, she worked for the state attorney's office for office for many years as a prosecutor after graduating

from the university of florida college of law, and she worked under jerry blair in the state attorney's office and went to work at a constitutional law firm defending religionist and first amendment liberty for several years. she came back to the state attorney's office and worked under the honorable skip jarvis, and was launched from their into speaking about our liberties and the constitution. she now travels and teaches an average of 265 events in over 22 states for about six years. she has a radio show in addition to all of that that she does six days a week. one of those is broadcast as a television show on the christian

television network lifestyle chandler. many more things. she has been a plumber, and emt, a biochemist, a paralegal, an attorney, i think the label she carries most probably would be mother, wife, christian and patriot. [applause] the slogan on her radio show is liberty over security, principal over party and truth over your favorite personality. she takes a lot of flak because she happens to be of the belief we should protect, defend and abide by constitutional principles no matter who is in office or which party is in power. please welcome chris and hall.

>> all right. here we go. can you hear me now? i am very excited to be here. it is always warming to my heart to be at home. you can imagine teaching 265 events in 22 states. we don't fear home very often. we are blessed, nonetheless, and we are happy to be here. right now there is a 77-year-old man, a veteran who served our country in federal prison right now in colorado because he built a stock pond on his land with the permission of his state, with the direction of the army corps of engineers, but the epa

said we don't care and prosecuted him for violating the clean air act even though the clean air act has a section that exempts stock ponds from their jurisdiction. we have an amish farmer in federal prison because he made a salve out of chickweed and shared it with his friends and family member. we have a u.s. disabled veteran who has had his civil rights stripped from him by a federal

judge for following state law. we have farmers, dairy farmers in indiana being harassed for having raw milk and cheese. we have political prisoners in or gone and utah. oregon and nevada because they took the step of peacefully protesting federal government overreach into their land and into their property. let me ask you a question. do you think our federal government is still out of control.

we need to find a solution, do we not. as i travel and teach, it is almost unanimous, the response i response i get when asked do you think the federal government is still out of control, and i teach varying groups with different ideologies, different political spectrums, and for different reasons, everybody has, everybody has an idea that the federal government is out of control. then the most asked question i get, as we teach, what you suppose that is? what we do about it? if we had been teaching the constitution properly for the past 150 years, we would know what to do. we don't have to reinvent the wheel. we don't have to find a solution the same solutions that existed in 1789 when we ratified the

constitution are the same solutions that exist today. how do we get the federal government under control? the solution is the state must fulfill their obligation as a proper check and balance. look at what shamus and jefferson said. if the states look with apathy on their government into the golf which is to swallow all, he is talking about washington d.c. when he's talking about this golf which is to swallow all, he's talking about everything being consolidated from big to little in washington d.c. your environment being controlled by washington d.c. you are right to keep and bear arms, your lands, your food, your medicine, everything being controlled by washington d.c. has become the goal which is to

swallow all. look what he says. we have only to weep over the human character formed uncontrollable, but by a rod of iron. when the government is out of control the society is reduced to chaos. when the checks and balances are not functioning, then the only thing that controlled chaos is a rod of iron. our framers gave us the greatest gift, the opportunity to self govern, and our greatest condemnation is our refusal to self govern.

everything is in place, we just simply must be dedicated to exercising our checks and balances. how does the state have the right to check the federal government? that's what were going to go through today. this whole class will be establishing, not by my opinion, not by my interpretation, but by history, by fact and by the words of the men who created our constitutional republic. i don't really feel myself to be a teacher of this information, i'm a phyllis phyllis facilitator facilitating the last thing before us since we

ratified the constitution. how does the state have a right to check the federal government? because the states came first. we need to realist reestablish some basic foundational principles. we need to connect some dots so we start heading off in the right direction and we need to get back to some very basic things, and i'm when i mean basic, i mean abc and 123. just that simple principle of understanding the states came first establishes a very important understanding of who is in charge. i want us to look at how the states came. we don't teach this history quite accurately in our school so i think it bears necessity to sort of reestablish the

historical truth. in our textbooks, we teach we became independent from great britain with the signing of the declaration of independence on july 4, 1776. that. that is not true. we became independent from great britain with the ratification of the lee resolution on july 2, 1776. the lee resolution, a three-step process to declaring independence from great britain brought forward by a delegate from the state of virginia by the name of richard hanlon henry lee. he proposed the lee resolution to the continental congress on june 7, 1776. on july second, 1776, the lee resolution was brought to the continental congress, it was debated, voted and ratified into law.

our independence from great britain was not a random act by a bunch of rogue you leak elite slaveowners who wanted to separate from the government so they could have the power to oppress everybody. it was a legislative act by duly elected legislative body, and just as legally binding as anything that our congress does today that's constitutional. as a matter of fact, this was such a huge day that john adams would write home to his wife abigail on july 3 and say july 2 will be an epic day where americans will celebrate their independence forever. do you know it wasn't until the mid-1800s that hundreds that we started celebrating our

independence on july 4. so knowing this, that our states, not by opinion or interpretation but by legal facts, by historical fact became independent states on july 2, then we must admit that the states existed prior to everything. prior to the declaration of independence by two days. the declaration of independence was not actually fully signed on july 4. july 4 is when the declaration of independence was published to the general public. it had only been signed by john hancock. it wouldn't be signed by the rest of the representatives of the states until the end of august. but now we have to understand, on july 2, is there a federal government?

no because we've just thrown it off. on july 4 there is no federal government either. there is just the states. now our first federal government is formed through the articles of confederation. there's a problem. the problem isn't probably what you've been taught. you see popular teaching teaches that the article of confederation failed because we created a federal government to small. you know the implication is that the next federal government that we created was much bigger and much more powerful and that simply is not true. when you look at the debate and you look at the history, you see that the largest driving force to the reconsiderations of the articles of confederation had to

do with an authority that was actually delegated to the federal government. see the problem was not that the articles of confederation created a government that was too small, they created the federal government that had insufficient guidance on how too do what they were supposed to do so, like like governments, without proper guidance and proper checks, they will do things that are not supposed to do. they were also doing the things they were supposed to do, but not doing them properly. for example, one of the biggest points of contention with the articles of confederation had to do with treaty. treaty is a power delegated to the federal government, only under the articles of confederation they were making equitable treaties. they were making treaties with foreign governments in which one state or a set of states had to

foot the whole bill, and then a completely different state or different set of states got all the benefits. the states who were being required to pay for the expense of the treaty were obviously in opposition. are you kidding me, that's not why we join this union, so we can transfer our prosperity to another state, that's not what general welfare means, and they were refusing, righteously so, refusing to comply with these treaties. now the states who were supposed to get all the benefit are now mad at the states who will pay the bill, but we have an even bigger problem because a treaty is a contract with a foreign government. a foreign government mind you that has no idea how we are supposed to be working so they have no idea that the federal

government has made an unlawful treaty. all they see as they made a contract with united states and the united states is not holding up their end of the bargain. so we are most literally on the verge of war between the states and on the verge of war with foreign countries and we just got started. congress is like look, this is not going to work. we have to pull together a new delegation, we have we have to fix these articles of confederation. the constitutional convention was called. the constitutional convention does not amend the article of confederation's because the the article of confederation are not what we operate under now. what we operate under now is called the constitution and the constitution is actually declared itself to be the more perfect union.

that's why it's called the more perfect union because it was supposed to be more than the articles of confederation. we will learn that the nature of the constitution is that it is a contractual agreement between the states. you can't have two competing contracts. if you're going to have a new contract, you you have to get rid of the old contract, and that's exactly what has happened now, when we get rid of the articles of confederation, what happens to the central government it created? it is gone too, right? >> right now, prior to the ratification of our current constitution, there is no federal government. there is only the states. now we also know that to be true from fact in history. how many of you remember from

your history class, or your civics class that there was a very precarious moment prior to the ratification of our current constitution where we did not have enough states to ratify. how many of you remember that. and the proponents of the constitution were very concerned and they said over and over again, if we do not ratify the constitution, there will be no union. the states will be separate and independent. they will operate independently and we will have no means to operate as a unit. doesn't that fact tell us there is no central government anymore ? we have over 13 years where the only consistent government that exists without him interruption is the states. thirteen years before the federal government.

the state came first in order to understand the role of the state, we must understand what is a state. what does it mean to be a state. now my opinion on that is irrelevant. i think the facts tell us all we need to know, and we find the definition of the word state the last paragraph of the declaration of independence. a state is not a colony. now this last paragraph of the declaration of independence actually comes from the first paragraph of the lee resolution, and it says we therefore, the representatives of the united states of america, in general congress assembled, appealing to the supreme judge of the world,

due in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare. we didn't become independent on july 4. we published and declared what we had done two days prior. that these united colonies are, and the right ought to be free. we just discovered what we are not. we are not a state of colonies. there must be a distinction because if there is no distinction between a colony in a state, then there's no point in even making that statement. it's a redundant statement. so what is the difference between a colony and a state? very simply, a colony is not free and independent. if you live in a colony, you must seek permission and guidance from the central government before you can use your lands. you must seek permission and guidance from the central government before you can use or

manage your resources. you must seek permission and guidance from the central government before you can create laws and regulate businesses, even before you can educate your people, if you are a colony. anybody feeling a little like a colony out there? here's the good news. we are not colonies. we are free and independent states. knowing what estate is not is not as good as knowing what it is. here we know it is not a colony so what is it? continuing now with the declaration of independence, we know that they, these free and independent states are above all allegiance to the british crown and that all political connection between them and the one, state of what?

state of great britain. you see that word state is not simply synonymous with new hampshire, rhode island, island, or virginia. that word state is synonymous with great britain, france and germany. : they have full power to levy war, contract alliances and do

all other acts and things which independent states like great britain, france or germany may have a right to do. and this is the power of the state holds today. someone might try to explain this away and say if your state isn't one of the first 13, this doesn't apply to you. that is not politically accurate. there is a doctrine called the equal footing doctrine that says every state that enters the union answers on the same footing as the first 13. and if there is the footprint to conclude peace and do all things

that each and every solver in and independent government on the planet has the right to do. someone might try to say that may be too you were when you formed the state but when you entered the union, you surrender your power. that's ridiculous. but it's also historically inaccurate and constitutionally inaccurate. what does the constitution say about power? the tenth amendment says that power is not delegated. it doesn't sa say say cowardiced surrender thithat power isn'tsus not delegated. let me ask you a question or the words delegate and surrendered synonymous? you now know more than the supreme court of the united states.

[applause] i have actually read supreme court opinions written by justice antonin scalia that declares that the states surrendered power and that is simply not what happens. let me ask you a question. how many of you have heard of a sovereign government by the name of germany? didn't germany joined the european union? so we will go over an and hold a big town hall meeting and explained to the german people and their chancellors but because they joined the eu germany is no longer a sovereign government how do you think they will take that piece of news quite so why do floridians?

our states were created with a greater sovereignty and germany could ever imagine. our states were created under the principle that we hold these truths to be self evident all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. germany was created under the principle that king's delegate rights. we were created with a greater r sovereignty, and yet somehow, we expect a greater servitude. what is the nature of this constitution that we are trying to operate a train to a play properly? the constitution legally speaking is a compact, legally binding. an agreement between legally sovereign governments.

that's how you distinguish a compact from a contract. a contract is an agreement between legally sovereign people. and i mean you achieve the age of legal consent. can a 15-year-old create a legally binding contract? know because your 15-year-old is in sovereign in the eyes of the law but this is what our constitution is. we know that because that is what a doctors of the constitution call it and it is an agreement between legally sovereign states. what is the structure of the compact and how does that work? dot states are the parties to the contract. it is a legally binding agreement between this government going back to what he

alreadwealready learned, connece dots what were the only government that existed prior to the ratification of the constitution? the states. since we know the compact is an agreement between the sovereign government, then we must admit the states are the parties to that because they are the only ones that existed. the state's ban we must know that the government is the product. did the federal government exist prioexisted prior to the ratification of the constitution? now, someone might try to tell you that i am not applying the

truth and that it's an agreement between the people and the federal government. if that is not true and you can prove that faults with one simple fact. was the constitution ratified by the popular vote of the people? how was the constitution ratified? >> through the states. the representatives of the people went through their state. someone might try to tell you that it's an agreement between the states and the federal government. there are people that i referred to as federals upon assists. these are people that try to explain the federal government is superior to the states in all cases or in the very least code equal and they will try to

support by saying the constitution is an agreement between the states and the federal government. that is a temporal impossibility. because you see the central government is the product of the contract. you cannot be the party to the contract if you are the party of the contract. you cannot sign the contract into legal being if you do not exist until the contract signed. and the only sovereign governments that existed that could be parties of the conflict are the states. knowing that states are about partiethe states areparties andl government is the product, then we must note that the states are the creators of the central government. right? than the states created the central government.

when they created the central government, they created a limited central government. they enumerative its specific powers and then they did the most important thing they could have ever done. they reserved all of their power to themselves. the power not delegated to the united states for the reserve to five states and to the people respectively. now we need to ask what power is delegated because if we are going to keep the federal government and its designated power structure as required by the constitution, then we have to know what power has been delegated. i think we also need to know what is delegated? what does the term meme. mean.

let's look at this. we don't have to have the supreme court give their ultimate opinion on the power delegated to the federal government. we don't have to interpret anything because james madison, the father of the constitution wrote it down in a document that we call federalist 45 he says the powers delegated. there's that word again. this is an important wor word wn understanding the right and the duty of the state and their power over the federal government. the password is delegated by the constitution to the federal government as few. he says those that remain in this space are numerous and indefinite. madison doesn't believe the

definition of that. he will get downright specific now. he says the former meaning the power delegated to the federal government will be exercised principally on external objects. that's how the framers referred to the foreign affairs and then he names them as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. he says the power to tax will come from these delegated powe powers. not education, not environment, not welfare. the power was to be reserved to the peace negotiations. now let me ask you because this list of power should look familiar to you. didn't we just see this power resting somewhere else a few minutes ago? where was that?

with the states. the states possess full power to conclude peace, contract alliances, establish and do all things which independent states, great britain, france or germany may have the right to do. let's look at this. the federal government has been delegated the power. if someone had delegated that power to the government who would have delegated some of the states. that's why this word is so important. let's look at the definition of the word delegate. a temporary trust of responsibility by a higher power to a lower power.

we just established by fact that the state delegated power to the federal government. that means the states are the higher power and the federal government is the lower power. not only this but this is the distinction between delegate and surrender. to delegate is a temporary trust. it's like an employee or with an employee. if i own a business and i hire someone and i say to them i want you to do this job for me, whatt if they do the job on? as the employer do i have to keep letting them do the job wrong? no because i never delegated the power once the they failed to upgrade and that authority or

responsibility in the way that the power dictates, it is within the rightful authority of the higher power to pull the power from the lower power. or the alternative saying you will do it the way that we want you to do it or you will be fired. >> so, what power has been reserved for, peace, negotiations, foreign commerce, foreign affairs being delegated to the federal government? by the state to the federal government with powers have been reserved. guess what, we don't have to guess. we don't have to take it to the supreme court to announce the powers reserved to the states because james madison the father of the constitution has already

told us and the ratification the states have declared madison to be correct. >> she says continuing in the federalist 45 the power is reserved to the federal state. that word doesn't mean a few between separate and independent will extend to all. i think it begs the question of clarity because we know we have a government that likes to redefine the word is. as long as we are in agreement all still means all, all the objects in which the ordinary course of affairs.

it concerns the properties of the people and be prosperity of the state. what about the epa and the bureau of land management. property of the people, right? what about the department of education. what about the fbi, dhs, the f. a. a., the department of energy. the list goes on. what about those things. the internal order, the lives of the people, the property of the people and the father of the constitution says these are not powers delegated to the federal government, they are powers

reserved to the states. why is power reserved? said that the states can retain the integrity of the constitution and maintain the federal government and its limited and few and defined authorities. in 1830, we were experiencing many of the things we are experiencing today. a federal government coming out of its view, states trying to push it back in, some people thinking the federal government should do these things, some people thinking the federal government should not. it's the great debate of 1830. and in this great debate, john

calhoun is going to try to help us understand the power of the word reserved. he says the doctrine which denies to the states the right of protecting the reserved power that is a pretty bold statement declaring that they have a right to do something. why would they have a right to protect their reserved power? because they are reserved. it means to exercise dominion to the exclusion of all others. if there is a chair on the stage and on the chair is a sign that says reserved for chris van hall if someone else sits in a chair, what do i have the right to do, kick her out.

if they don't have the right come is the chair reserved? no. by establishing through form and function that the state powers are reserved, the people in creating the states and in ratifying the constitution declare that these powers are the property of the states to exercise dominion over that of everybody else to include the federal government. now there is a very important consequence of denying the power of reserve and calhoun says if the states do not have the right to protect the reserved power, then what you are actually

declaring is that it is the federal government who has the right to determine finally and exclusively the limits of its own power. and the federal government can determine the limits of its own power, then what is the limit of the federal government's power. there is none. their own will and the government is limited only by its will is not a constitutional republic. it is a totalitarian kingdom. now let's think about this going back and connecting the building blocks. the constitution is what kind of document? is a compact and a compact is an agreement between the sovereign government.

the constitution is between the sovereign state but the state must submit to everything the federal government says without question our dusty sovereign? no and if they are not, can they create a legally binding contract, no. so can they protect their reserved property if the federal government can dictate to the state how it operates, then the states are not sovereign, the constitution is not a legally binding document. we are not a constitutional republic, we are 50 colonies in a federal kingdom. but here is the good news.

the states are sovereign. the constitution is a legally binding contract and nothing has changed. [applause] the only thing that really needs to happen is we have to change the way we think about government, the way that we want the government to operate and we have to change how our states operate within the republic, because if the states simply acquiesce, then we are not a republic anymore, we are a kingdom. what happens if the federal government uses the own delegated power? thomas jefferson explains what happened. he says when the general government assumes on delegated

powers, its acts are an authoritative, void and of no force. let's look at that for just a second. because what jefferson is saying is that when the federal government uses power outside of the constitution, it is stealing the power from the states. how is he saying that? let's look. what is your name? gary. for this analogy, we are going to pretend that i've just stolen gary's car. do i have the authority to drive gary's car, no i do not. why have the authority to sell gary's car, no i do not. because my power over gary's car wasn't legally delegated. it is not a delegated power. that means any act by exercise

over gary's car is an authoritative, void and of no force because i've stolen it. i do not have legal possession of his car. the scary have to su be to get s car back? no. he provides the deed to the local official and they have to return the car to him and the rightful legal owner of that property. jefferson is explaining to us that when the federal government uses power outside of the constitution, it is stealing power from the states because the power has been reserved to the states. it is their rightful legal property and the federal government is using their property without the proper legal delegation. do the states have to sue the federal government to get their power back?

absolutely not. they simply have to provide the deed to their power. what is the deed to their power? the constitution. do you know the state suing the federal government to get their power back is not only unnecessary but it is ridiculous and dangerous? the states suing the federal government to get their power back is like gary suing me to get his car back, showing up in court and finding out that the judge and every one on the jury or my family members because the states are suing the federal government where? in federal court, where the judges are appointed by? the federal government. that is a stacked court. and given the progression of our federal court today, do we have

any reasonable expectation that the court would decide against a federal power in favor of the states of the constitution? not only that, it's dangerous. if the states are left with the only recourse of suing the federal government, what happens when the federal government says nope, it's ours? then we are either reduced to being tributary slaves to the oligarchy is kind of kings and queens or we are left with a rod of iron. why must the states check federal power? because it is peaceful, rightful remedy and it is their duty to

do so. in 1799, we are experiencing similar circumstances of today a federal government coming out of its few and defined box, the state trying to enforce the constitutional contract and keeping them in their few and defined box. and in this period of time, we have the legislators in the state of virginia getting in the general assembly address to the people saying look, we have a job and a duty that is above everything else. the number one job description of the state and local government is not economic improvement. the number one responsibility of the state and local government is not business regulation, education or security.

the number one responsibility of the state and local government is aske asked by legislators an9 declared to be the guardians of the state sovereignty. why must they guard the state sovereignty? because they've taken a solemn i do swear in support by the defendant for the constitution of the united states. because remember, the previously established that if the states are not sovereign and independent, they cannot make a legally binding contract, and if they cannot make a legally binding contract, then the constitution is dissolved and the union does not exist and there is no republic. it is the obligation of the state and local governments under their oath to maintain their sovereignty as a state. what is the greatest attack on the sovereignty of the state? federal encroachment.

every dollar o through state and local government takes. any dollar, 1 dollar from the federal government to your state and locastate andlocal governmer sovereignty. because pays the pipe maker and the ten. it is dictated to the federal government in order to keep the funding. and before long, you may have a population of people who think that they cannot even survive without federal money. the creation dictating over the creator. that's an aberration. how do we see the federal encroachment? they say the federal encroachment may come to you close to the pretext of

necessity because you know he must have national health care, right? of course we must have national health care or we are all going to die. i have bad news for you, we are all going to die about in the federal government funding healthcare the only thing that will be established through national healthcare is the federal governmen government thl decidover the sitewill, when anu die. not only closed in the pretext of necessity, they will be disguised by the arguments of expediency because we have to pass the bill so we can read the bill. sound familiar? ..

all the con -- consequences of usurped power but a the lion another of the cage with his whole body and when you let the lion another of the came you shouldn't be surprised if he bites you head off. what must the state do, the father of our constitution, james madison says in the case of dangerous exercise of other powers not granted, who, the states have the right to

interpose. madison says the states have a right to step in between the federal government's exercise of power to defend the rights and the liberties of the people. why do they have the right to do that? because of power is reserved. they have a right to keep the federal government off their power because the power has been reserved to them. notice that madison says they not only have the right, they are duty-bound to interpose. the righty of duty is greater unanimous a right. why are our states duty-y bound? because we hold these truths to be self-evidence that all piehl mean are created equal. and that to secure these rights, governments are institution el among them deriving their just power from the consent of

governed. there's only one reason government exists, only one reason the authority of the people created and free and independent states and that was to secure our rights. and if the states are not stepping between the federal government and limiting it to its few and defined powers then they are failing to accomplish the single purpose for their existence, and that is why they have a duty. how does a state interprocess? thomas jefferson explained the process of interposition. when the several states who formed the constitution being what? sovereign and independent. have the up questionable right to judge the infractions. because they're the creators of the contract. that a nullification by those

sovereignties, the state, is the rightful remedy. what is nullification? what is a sovereign state? a sovereign state is the right of the states to exercise their reserved power to protect their reserved power. a sovereign state is not the rejection of all government and the commission of violence against government officials. nullification is not a state refusing to comply with all federal government. nullification is the state saying, you stole my car and i'm not letting you drive it anymore. i'm taking the keys back and i simply will not comply with stolen authority. a that's nullification is a.

if we're going to be accurate of the analogy with the gary's car, let's assume gary has gone on vacation for three weeks to the bahamas. ' or he has been in a coma the last 150 years. the day gary goes on vacation, i steal his car. now he doesn't know his car is stolen. he is living it up in the bahamas. but for three solid weeks i drive around in gary's car. everybody that sees me drive gary's car assume i have the legal authority to do so. why? because nobody is objecting. gary comes home from vacation, realized i've stolen his car, and he steps up and says, you stole my car. i am taking my car back because i have the rightful legal authority to do so. just because the federal

government has been exercising stolen power within your state for the last 100 years, does not change that stolen authority into a legal authority. it is still stolen. it is still unlawful. now, there are people, my federal supremacist friends, who assert that nullification is not a rightful remedy, and what they'll say is that nullification is not the rightful recommend because -- remedy because the supreme court is the ruler of the constitution. i was in a federal courtroom the other day in kansas, where the federal judge announced that it is the job of the supreme court and the circuit courts to announce the constitution. i'm sorry.

we announced that in 1789. but is this a proper interpretation of the authority of the supreme court? can the supreme court determine its own authority? because you see that's what they've done. the constitution does not delegate the ultimate definitive authority of the station constitution to the court. it's a power they secured from -- for themes through a series of fish -- of their open opinions. wouldn't you like to live in that universe where you can just write your open power? look look at has maddison sid. if the decision of the authority -- who are she sovereign parties to the constitution? let say it like that. why don't we. if the decisions of the judiciary be raised've the

authority of the states, dangerous powers not delegated may not only be usurped and executed by other departments about that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the constitution. consequently, the ultimate right of the parties to the constitution, who are? the ultimate right of the states to judge whether the compact has been violated must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another. by the judiciary as well as by the executive or the legislative. madison is reminding us of some very important facts. number one, the states created the constitution. number two, the states created the federal government. when the states created the federal government, they created three branches of federal government.

the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. that means even the judiciary, any power the judiciary exercise is is power thatline delegated to it by the states which means the states are the higher power and the federal government is the judiciary, the supreme court is the? lower power. and if the supreme court being part of the whole can define the purr of the whole, then what is the element to the whole -- the limit to the whole residents residents -- who's power? it's inlimited. thunder sprem cust prepared will try to assert to you that madison change his mind several times about nullification. here's the problem. every one of those examples of

madison flip-flopping is an example where madison is talking about nullification from a different context. ever heard of the phrase context is king? one of the examples they'll give you is this one. mod madson is speaking to the house of representatives during the ratification debate nor bill of rights, trying to assert the bill of rights will be safely inserted into? constitution because the court will be in a unique position to guard our rights. there was an argument with' put in the constitution and bill of rights a list of rights that the federal government would use that list against us. that someone in government, as hamilton skypes, disposed to usurp our rights, would simply allege that through the list, we have created an authority of the federal government to regulate our rights.

it's not on the list. since it's not on the list we must have want federal government to regulate it or it would be on the list of right. if it's on the list of rights, how do we know what is? we'll do you a favor. we'll define the rights for you so we don't usurp or infringe or abridge upon your rights. mat madson said, look, we can have a bill of rights rights ane government will not abuse the rights the legtive or executive powers will not abuse the rights because the judiciary will ben enpen thattable. do you see state in that list? no. the check of the judiciary is a check on the legislative and the executive, not on the power of the state.

but you see maddison doesn't end here. very next statement establishes what we have already established by fact and history and truth. he says, besides the security of the courts limiting the executive and the legislative branches, there is a great probability that the bill of rights will be enforced because the state legislators will jealously and closely watch the operations of the government why will our state logger being jealous my closely watching the operations of the federal government? because they have a duty to preserve their reserved power. the state legislators will be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do. and the greatest opponent to a federal government, the state

legislators to be the sure guardians of the people's liberty. your state and local governments are supposed to be the greatest opponent to the federal government, not their best friend, coworkers and on the same payroll. it is their duty to limit the federal government's power to the few and defined so that we can have our liberty guarded. look at what jefferson said in 1812. already in 1812. the great object of my fears the federal judiciary, that body like gravity ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, graining ground step by step and holding what it gains is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them. talking about the precedent of the court, writing their own power, and then compounding power upon power how to precedent upon precedent, until

they engulf all. he says then our government will become as venal and oppress service as the government from which we separated because we will by funkings as kings and queens and not a constitutional public. i just want to ask this question. why should we have this faith in the supreme court to be the protecter offed history. this is the supreme court that said, dred scott cannot be a citizen of the united states because he is a black man. dread to the. this not the discussion that declared dread trot to be property. it was the supreme court interpreting erroneously the constitution. declaring dred scott to be property and not people. what about the supreme court

that said, yes, it's okay to indefinitely detain japanese americans, men, women, and children, because it's necessary for us to feel safe. does this sound like a guardian of your liberty? no, it sounds like a guardian of federal power. and that is why they were never delegated this authority. does the supremacy clause prohibit the states from their rightful remedy? because your federal supremacists friend will sale the supremacy clause says that federal law trumps state law. is that what it really says? how about we listen to alexander hamilton instead of a supreme court justice or a federal court judge. hamilton says, no legislative act contrary to the constitution can be valid.

that's exactly what the supremacy clause say, by the way. let's look at it. in the sprem si clause, article 6, section 2 of the constitution declares this constitution and the laws of the united states which shall be made in purr as soon as of there shall be the supreme law of the land. the constitution is a supreme law of the land. nothing else has to happen it's the constitution and therefore it is supreme. however, the laws created by congress -- and may i also submit the regulations made by agencies -- are only the supreme law of the land when they are made in pursuance to the constitution. not every law is supreme. only the ones that fit under the constitution. you can't have federal laws and constitution on equal footing, because then all it take is us one lieu that superseded the constitution and then the constitution is not supreme anymore.

and if the constitution is not supreme, from where does the congress get their authority? just themselves. hamilton said, no legislative act thereafter contrary to the constitutioning be valid. he is telling us if the federal government is crating laws not consistent with the constitution they are no law at all. what obligation do we have to find ourselves to be bound by ala that has no legal effect. >> there's no constitutional one. er is the state's rightful remedy constitutional? some will say nullification is not in the constitution. you can look for that word all day and never find and it therefore nullification is unconstitutional.

let's look the constitution. the mental amendment. the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor appropriated by the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. let me ask you something, if nullification is not in the discussion, that does that tell us? it's not a power that is delegated. right? and if it's not a power that is delegated, it's what? it is reserved to the states. so by not being in constitution, establishes that nullification is a power reserved to the states. and it is their duty to do so. what does the supreme court say today about nullification? you all know this guy, right? justice roberts. you see, your federal supremacist friends won't talk

about this opinion and you won't see this in media either. this is justice robert ares' majority opinion in the first affordable care act decision. i will read to you what he says he says, quote, we look to the states to defend their prerogative by adopting the simple expedient of not yielding to federal -- when ado not want to embrace federal policies as their own. that is the chief justice of the supreme court of the united states in a majority opinion telling the states you need to nullify. and then look what he says. to he -- this should eliminate every single doubt in our federal supremacist's mind. the says the states are separate and independent sovereigns, and they have to act like it. what he is saying,'s time we

start acting like it? how can you dispute that? is the state's rightful remedy lawful? someone we try to say they states can't nullify federal law. what is the states nullify federal law? how will we know what is lawful and not lawful for the states to just refuse to comply with the federal law on whatever and however they choose. they don't like the law and they won't follow it. there with be anarchy in the country. no will know what is law and what is not. here is the problem. what controls the federal government? the states. why? because nullification is not the states acting unlawfully. now nullification is the states enforcing the supreme law of the

fact when the federal government is acting unlawfully. states are not allowed to nullify to disregard any federal law, but they have a duty to disregard federal laws that are not constitutionally established. we have to understand that the states have a duty to limit its creation. because here's the consequence. if the federal government is not defined by the constitution, then why too we have one? what is the purpose of the constitution if the federal government can make whatever it wants? is the federal gov is not limited in its power by the constitution, then what is the limit of the federal government 's power? the only limit to federal government's pair in a proper

check and balance is when the states tell its creation, you can only do what we have delegated you to do, and anything beyond that is null and void and no law at all. so how do we start? what do we start doing some nullifying. well, look at what -- remember what jefferson said. when all government, domestic and foreign, as alsos great things shall be drawn into washington osgood the center off all power it will render powerless the checks provided of one government over another. notice he didn't say one branch over the other. right? he said, one government over the other. what is the government that is supposed to be checking over the other government? the states over the federal government. he even goes on to say: if the states declaring the antecedent to check being the state, if the

states look with apathy on the silent dissent of their government into the gulf that swallows all. our states must take control. because if i our states refuse to take control, then our states are simply declaring that they are not states, they're colonies. and we are not free. we are subjects. then i ask you why do we have states? why do we even need state government if that's how they're going to operate. if they want to act like colonies why have them aft all? if they're going to defend the constitution, if they're going to defend our liberty, we need state and local legislation asserting the state reserved power. we need state and local legislation denying unauthorized federal power.

in the meantime, we need a shared state and local official standing in defense of the rights and lischs of the people and saying, until we have legislation, we will not comply. because you have no authority over these matters. they are reserved and your power is null and void. states have a rightful recommend. it is not an invention. it is not an interpretation. its not a new idea. it was a established by the nature of the constitution being a contract. it remains because the states are still separate and independent sovereigns. it is their duty because we created them to protect our rights and liberties.

and that is what we, the people, must strive for. [applause] >> if you enjoyed this presentation, there's a book on the back table, sovereign duty, the less union taught you comes from that book, sovereign duty. if you -- how many of you liked the slides and the quotes? okay. this book teaches not just what i taught you tonight, teaches about the nature of the constitutional sheriff, it has a lesson on your right to keep and bear arms, your trying be secure in your property, it has a lesson on article 5, conventions, has a lesson on nullification specifically. and in this book, every quote

and every document cited i gave you my original source in the back of the book. i give you all my research. why? because i believe that we have to stop believing people in what they say simply because they hold a microphone, sit on -- stand on stage, they're on the news, or they call themselves professor or judge. we need to start questioning and finding the original source to all truths so that we can be the defenders of our liberty. you see, i don't want you to believe i word i told you. i want you to know it to be true. so i'm giving you all my research so you can test me out because i am confident in the conclusions and if you test me, then you will be the expert, and then we will have a boldness to stand before our legislators,

our sheriff's, our local governments and say, you must defend our liberty and we will not comply. [applause] >> now, here is our contact information system muss told you about the radio show, the television show, but here's those things in case you need to write them down. we'll do a question and answer session, and we're not -- not going to be very long but we want to make-under sure that we have the opportunity to do questions and answers, but this is what i want us to know. there are rules to the question and answers. rule number one you must come up to the front and speak interest the -- into the microphone. rule number two do not take the microphone off the stand. rule number three, and i feel which is pour important than rule number one and rule number

two, you must have a question and you must get to your question quickly. because i don't know most of you know me, i'm a rather bold spoken person, i'm not afraid to say, i'm sorry, where is your question? okay. so if you want debate me on ash issue i'm happy to do that after the class, after the question and answer session, or you can schedule a whole new event and we can debate -- talk about your particular subject. so let's make sure that we get to the questions quickly and so we can get as many questions answered as possible in this limited period of time. you must also afford me the latitude to say, i don't know. because i don't know everything about everything. and the good news for you is i'm not running for office so i dent need you to think i know everything about everything. okay?

so we will do -- what do you say, john, 15 minutes? we'll have 15 minutes of question and answer, and we need you to come up and line up the microphone. this will be microphone a and microphone b. if we get two lines farmed we'll go a, b, a, b. agreeable? all right. >> i know who he is. >> question is: how can we be effective as local people of our county and of our state? how can be do this effectively as far as reaching our representatives? what do we do? >> that's a very good question and i'd like to answer it like i like to answer all of those. not through my opinion but through the words of the men who create ordinary constitution and republic. samuel adams said, no people will tamely surrender their

lischs no be easily subdued when knowledge is diffused and very tie preserved. on the contrary when the people become universally ignorant and debached in the manner they will sink under their open weight without the aid of foreign invaders. how you become an effective champion for liberty, figure right and for limited government? you must yourself first get educated. you must get educated. so that you will notice when your rights are being usurped. or transgressed. you must notice. you must get educated so you can be righteousfully upset when that happens. and you must get educated so that you can educate your county commissions you city councilmen, your sheriff, your state government.

and hopefully get educated so you won't elect people that need further education. okay? this is what we, we, have to do. we must be jealous and vigilant of our rights but we cannot do that if we don't knee -- don't know what they are. to finish the question i want to give the audience a pop quiz. do not answer out loud. and do not cheat with your smart phone, your tablet or your pocket constitution. everybody agree? don't even lip sync the answer. there are five liberties in the first amendment. to yourself name all five. sinks we're here in florida we have a supreme caught justicer named fred laws who took poll and found out only -- here's my question to you.

if you do not know what your rights are how to duo they're not already gone? and that's why education is all the first step. yes, sir. >> my name is frank powers. do you think we should have a constitutional amendment that would limit the terms of federal judges excluding the supreme court, or either have a re-affirming period like we do in florida? >> okay. the question is -- i don't know decide did everybody hear the question? do we need term limits for jumps -- sprem court judges. >> not the supreme court but federal judges. >> federal judges. we have term limits for federal judges. it's called good behavior. justices on the federal level do not have lifetime appointments. that's something we need to change. they have appointment on good behavior. what does that mean? we're supposed to be watching

the behavior of our justices the way we monitor a kindergarten class. and the minute a judge behaves badly, he is supposed to be removed. there's no vote necessary. there's no time limit. i mean, seriously, if we identify a judge acting in bad behavior and he has a term limit of 12 years do we have to wait ten years for him to goway? that might be what happens because aberdeen a is like, well, we don't want to impeach. wait until he is done and then have ten years of guaranteed bad behavior. the problem does not exist in the limits of the judicial appointment. the problem exists in an. tent and use itself congress that refuses to engage in their

necessary check and balance. how many of you listen to my radio show i have been talking about judicial abuse. do you know we have supreme court justices right now that only hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock in companies that they regularly hear before them in the courtroom? their wives own stock in companies that they hear -- that are parties to the discussion inside their courtrooms? you have aelena kagan, a supreme court justice who was solicitor general and created the argument in favor of the affordable care act, sitting on the bench determining whether the affordable care act is constitutional or not. that is a clear conflict of interest. you have justice ginsburg, who publicly came out against the

state law and then didn't recuse herself when the state law came before the supreme court. not only that justice ginsburg sat before the entire world in an interview with an egyptian reporter and said that egypt should not use the u.s. constitution as a model because its not reputable. it was written by a bunch of racist, misogynistic men and could not be used as a model today. our supreme court justices take an oath they'll support and defend the constitution of the united states without hesitation or mental reservation. what justice ginsburg did was bad behavior. we have justice in the circuit court in oregon, that refuse to allow defendants to read the first amendment because she said

the constitution is not relevant in her courtroom. that is bad behavior. so we need to exercise the authorities we have and the only way that will happen is when we know what they are and demand they happen. yes, ma'am. >> are you aware of the confederacy of states, movement that has been started. >> i'm night ware. >> don't anybody else is. it's on the internet. it's a step towardded what you were talking about. >> i can't speak on it. >> check it out. >> yes, ma'am. >> hi. how do we apply your principle of state sovereignty to the issue of immigration? >> a very good question. and we have to first identify what is the delegated authority

of the federal government over immigration. the delegated authority of the federal government over immigration is that they are empowered to create congress. congress is imempowerred to create a uniform rule of naturalization. period. the president's obligation is to faithfully execute the laws of the united states. meaning it is the president's obligation to faithfully execute the uniform rule of naturalization. now, what kind of document is the constitution? it is a compact. it is an agreement between the states. it's a contract between the states. and every state in the union has agreed to the terms of the contract. which means every state in the union has agreed that it is to the federal government to create

the uniform rule of naturalization. which means that if an immigrant does not follow this rules or cannot comply with those laws, then that immigrant is illegal. and as a state, agreeing to the terms of the contract the state has an obligation to abide by the term of the contract. and that is i would sanctuary cities north lawful nullification. sanctuary cities are nullifying ala that has been constitutionally created under proper delegated authority. those states that harbor sank ware cities -- sanctuary stays are actually violating their contractual agreement. now, because our immigration

immigration city has become mudded with the term refugee we also have to address this as well. a uniform rule of naturalization. that is what immigration is supposed to be. however, refugee status is not a uniform rule and it is not a pathway to naturalization. therefore, refugee status is an unconstitutionally established delegation of a person's residency. that is why the states and the governors have the authority to refuse to accept refugees because the power of refugee status is an undelegated authority and therefore it is null and void. not only do they have the authority to refuse refugees, put when the federal government

is exercising power outside the constitution. the states have a duty to do so. let me give you a little update. right now, before the state of texas, is a senate bill that will create anker and state compact -- interstate compacted that will secure our borders and reassert the state's authority to refuse refugees in their borders. senate bill 512. in texas. florida can sign into this interstate compact. this interstate compact is not superseding federal authority. it is not taking a power from the federal government. this interstate compact is ensure that the state is in

compliance with proper federal law. and that's one of the recommend we can have. i asserting our authority. you see we have an obligation. if i can just add one more point. do you know every state that offers in-state tuition to illegal aliens is violating federal law? it is unlawful, according to federal law, according to the uniform rule of naturalization, it is unlawful to hide, harbor, hire, or house an illegal alien. subject, depending on the terms to up to ten years in prison for every single violation. what does that say about our state legislators?

who are knowingly and willfully violating a federal law that should subject them to ten years in prison for each violation. and what does is say when we are prosecuting individuals for violating the crime or for violating the laws, but we allow our representatives in government to violate the laws with in consequences. >> to tag along with my first question, and thank you for your answer, all right, we have the authority because we are in a compact. but how can jacksonville, gainesville, and tampa be welcoming cities to muslim refugees without the general public knowing about it, how can those city councils exude

their -- exert their snort what can we do to stop it? i understand what you're saying. you're absolutely right. we have to get oeducated. in meantime with are all at risk and we need to be able to do the right thing right now. we need to be able to say, what is our path that we have to follow in order to get this under control? >> well, the first statement you said, they're doing this without our knowledge. most people don't know that. that's the first step. the education. remember, we are tamely suffering these lawless attacks on our liberty because we don't know. let me ask you this question. how many of you think there are anymore our state and local government allowing these threats to come to america -- come into your communities denying property federal laud and deny thing responsibility and duty to protect our rights and larics.

how many peeve in state and local government do that becausety don't know any better? how many of you think that there are people in state and local government who are doing that because they have sacrificed principlety altar of pragmatism. human people do that's because they're week it, evil, greed, and they want money and power out of it. hoarse the question the end of the tea what difference is the motivation? james otis, jr., one of four founders who fought for our liberty, says that i have come to despise those whose guilt, malice or folly has made them my foe. guilt. sacrificing principle on the altar of pragmatism.

malice, greet, power, folly. ignorance. once we get educated on what is happening, we have to become dedicated to the principles that will allow us to look at these county commissioners, look at these city councilmen, look at these state legislators, look at our governor, and say, you are my foe, regardless of your motivation. which means you cannot continue to support them in their re-election, regardless of the political party politics. [applause] >> that's i would we're liberty first, liberty over security, principle over apart and truth over personality. because you see, government bill will do a lot of things when we're not looking. but they will never, ever do what we want them to do unless

we make them do it. and if we continually re-affirm their guilt, malice and folly, through re-election, then we're actually giving them our consent and permission to be immoral. and to destroy our liberty. >> hi. thank you for being here. >> hi, bob. >> what too you believe we should do about all the government corporation structure and my second question would be about the oath of office. in the florida constitution in the statutes, there's two different oaths. and one of. the pledges that support and defend the government. so, two questions. thank you. >> part of being -- i will speak

to you from a federal perspective, okay? because each and every state is i different. and then we will address the florida issue just because i'm a floridian, and i understand how this works for you. which is different from every -- for every a state. the powers delegated to the federal government are enumerated and defined. within that power is not a power to regulate business within the states. what happens through federal grants, through federal regulations, the federal government is picking winners and loser, driving people out of business if they don't have the right lobbyists. and creating a system in which liberty and the rights of the people are sacrificed for their

greed and political gain. case on point. monsanto. i don't know how many people are aware but there are farmers who are growing heirloom crops, and the monsanto seeds were blowing into their fields, corrupting their heirloom crops. the farmers tried to sue monsanto to keep their crops, their seeds from corrupting their crops. the farmers did not prevail. and monsanto filed a countersuit, suing the farmer for patent infringement because their seeds were blowing on to the farmer's property and they were stealing patented property.

what is even worse, is that congress has created regulations that protect monsanto from lawsuits, protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuit, making them immune for responsibility interior products. on against, the problem is not corporations. the problem is the lawless activity of congress. and when congress unites with corporations, you are not a constitutional republic, you are a fascist society. the second question -- oh, in florida, what powers are reserved to the states? well, a power reserved to states would be to regulate business. the problem this creation of

public-private associations. that's when you have the government funding private industry because they deemed it to be a matter of public importance. like an airport. your airports are privately owned. your airlines privately owned. they get profit. yet your tax dollars are used to build them. do you see any profit from them? the idea is the tax revenue pays that off. but when the government can partner up, then they're picking winners and losers again. and regulation of business doesn't stop any crime. it doesn't prevent any real harm from the -- to be people, the ear. let in the fifth you an example. we are missionaries to haiti. and when we -- one of our trips to hatety we stayed with a

family in irhome and thereof wake and so did the lady of the house. and in haiti they make these things called paté, the spanish call -- so they're pastries suffered with stuff and fried. so i was teaching my hostess house to make hang -- mango cream cheese paté. they were making and it frying and it -- never had anything like it. they thought this was amazing. and she said this to me. she said, madam, she said, let's go the market and get a bunch of cream cheese, bunch of mango, all the thing wes need to make the things. make a huge batch of them and for to the market and sell them. the haitian people with love them. went be able to make enough to last the whole day.

went, huh. i said, you know, if i had that idea in america, and i made up my mango cream chills paté and walked down to the street corner and tried to sell them, i would be arrested. because in america, if i want to sell my manage go cream cheese paté to the public i must get a per my from the government to el them publicly. then i must also get a permit to make them in any home. then i must bay the federal government their privilege of then imsuspecting my home to make sure that i'm creating the mango pallet day in a way that is compliant with the government's rules. and then is a put up my stand and sell my paté is have to put aside a portion of the sweat of my brow, the product of my lab you're to pay the government for the privilege of selling what i have created. and she said, wow.

she says that's not in the america i thought that was. you know, it's interesting. in haiti if you have a cow and it produced too much milk you sell it to your neighbors. there's nobody dying from mad cow disease in haiti. they have these yearly festivals where the people have these big feasts and you slaughter a cow, which is a huge thing there. or a goat, and if your cow is too big for you, your family can't consume the meat you walk to the end of your street and you hang the cow of a tree limb and as people come by you hack off pieces and sell it. people are not dropping down in haiti from e.coli. you see, government regulation

does not end disease or sickness. and just like laws don't stop crimed, regulations don't either do you know that for every legitimate regulation of a business there is already a criminal statute that cover that behavior? we don't need to. what we need to do is enforce the law on people equally. do you know why we created government regulations? because business owners who were wealthy and powerful were not being prosecuted for their criminal negligence and the injuries and the deaths of their people. so we said instead of enforcing the laws on these people we'll regulate them instead. has medical malpractice ended?

has corporate pollution ended? has corporate abuse of employees ended? no, because laws don't stop crime and neither do regulations. about what they do do is make politics and lobbyists fat. so to answer your question, is once again back to education. how do you limit your government? you understand to that you can't have liberty if you can't own your property and if the government is regular lails what you make, where you live, how you live and the ideas that you have, then you are not free. on any level. state, local, or federal. and i think that answers the question. did i get them? bob? what was the last one -- [applause] >> this will be our last question. what was the second question in? i didn't get it.

iing for get to. >> i was speaking more of the government corporations, state of florida is a corporation. >> i don't get into that sort of thingful that's out my wheelhouse. okay. >> that's out of the text and the federal constitution. >> all right. thank you. [applause]