.. [applause] >> all right. well, he and jc hall and my wife is krisanne hall. a lot of you here already know krisanne. i don't know how many visitors your rehab that don't. krisanne is a native of st. louis, missouri. she got her bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry from black college in illinois, joined the

united states army, was 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 many years as a prosecutor after graduating from the university of florida, levin college of law and she worked under jerry player and went to work at a constitutional law firm defending religious and first amendment liberty for several years. came back again to the state of missouri's office and worked under the honorable skip jarvis and was providentially launched from there into speaking about our liberties and the constitution. she now travels and teaches an average of 265 events in over 22

states for about the last six years since that providential launching. she has a radio show in addition to all of that but she does six days a week. one of those is broadcast as a television show on the christian television network lifestyle channel. many more things. she's been a plumber, an emt, a biochemist, paralegal, at tourney. i think the labels that she carries most probably would be mother, wife, christian and patriot. [applause] the slogan on her radio show is liberty over security, principle over party and truth over your favorite personality. she takes a lot of flak because she happens to be of the belief

that we should protect, defend and abide by constitutional principles no matter who's in office or which party is in power. please welcome, krisanne hall. [applause] >> all right. here we go. can you hear me now? okay, i am very excited to be here. it is always warming to my heart to be at home. you can imagine teaching to hundred 60 by the events in 22 states every year. we don't see our home very often. but we are blessed, nonetheless and we are happy to be here. right now, there is a 77-year-old man, a veteran who served over your country in

federal prison right now in colorado because he built a stocked pond on his land, with the permission of his day, with the direction of the army corps of engineers, that the epa said we don't care and prosecuted him for violating the clean air act. prosecuted in for violating the clean air act, even though the clean air act has affection that exempts stock ponds from their jurisdiction. we have an amish farmer in federal prison because he made a stab out of chickweed and shared

it with his friends and family members. we have a disabled u.s. veteran who's had his civil rights ripped from him by a federal judge for a following state law. we have farmers in indiana being harassed for having raw milk and cheese. we have political prisoners in oregon and utah or nevada because they took the bold and audacious step of peacefully protesting the federal government overreach into their

land and into their property. so 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 i teach, and it is almost unanimous response when i can when i get asked, do you think the federal government is still out of control? i teach varying groups with different ideologies, different political spectrum and for different reasons, everyone has an idea that the federal government is out of control. and then the most asked question i get as we teach, what do you suppose that is? what do we do about it? have we been teaching the constitution properly for the

last 150 years, we would know what to do. we don't have your reinvent the wheel. we don't have to find a solution because the same solution that existed in 1789 but we ratified the constitution are the same that exist today. how do we get the federal government under control? the solution as the states must fulfill their obligation as a proper check and balance. look at what thomas jefferson says. if the state like an apathy on the sound is sent to their government into the gulf which is to swallow all common he is talking about washington d.c. when he is talking about is to swallow while, he's talking about everything being consolidated from big to little and washington d.c.

your environment being controlled by washington d.c. your right to keep and bear arms. your land, your food, everything being controlled by washington d.c. has become the gulf which is to swallow. and look what he says. we have only to recover the human reforms uncontrollable but i arrived at iron. when the government is out of control, the society is reduced to chaos. when the checks and balances are not functioning, the only thing that can controlled chaos is a rod of iron.

our framers gave us the greatest gift, the opportunity to self govern. and our greatest condemnation today is our refusal to self govern. everything is in place. we just simply must be dedicated to exercising are checks and balances. how does this stay have the right to check the federal government? well, that is what we are going to go through today. the whole class will be establishing not in my opinion, not by my interpretation, but by history, by fact and by the man

who created our constitutional republic. i don't feel myself to be a teacher of this information today. a facilitator facilitating the lesson that have been before us as we ratified the constitution. our state has a right to check the federal government because the states came first. we need to reestablish some basic foundational principles. we need to connect.said that we start heading off in the right direction and we need to get back to some very basic things. when i'm in basic, i need abc and 123. just a little principle of understanding that the states came first establishes a very important understanding of who's in charge.

i want us to look at how first the states came. because we don't teach this history quite accurately in our schools. i think it is fair necessity to reestablish the historical truth. and our textbook, we teach that we became independent from grape written with the signing of the declaration of independence on july 4th, 1776. that is not true. we became independent from great britain with the ratification of the lead resolution on july 2nd 1776. brought forward by a delegate from the state of virginia by richard henry lee. richard henry lee proposes the resolution to the cut congress

on june 7, 1776. on july 2nd, 1776, the lee resolution was brought to the continental -- 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 elite slaveowners who wanted to separate from their government so that they cannot the power to oppress everybody. it is a legislative act by duly elected legislative bodies and just as legally binding as anything but our congress does today that's constitutional. as a matter of fact, this was such a huge day at john adams would write home to his wife, abigail on july 3rd and say

july 2nd will be at that day where americans will celebrate their independence forever. you know it wasn't until the mid-1800s that we started celebrating our independence on july 4th? so knowing this, then our state, not by opinion or interpretinterpret ation, but by illegal fact, historical fact, became independent state on july 2nd, then we must admit that the states existed prior to everything, right? prior to the declaration of independence even by today. the declaration of independence was not actually fully signed on july 4th. july 4th is in 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 state until the end of august. but now we have to understand on july 2nd, it is very federal government? no, because we have just thrown it off. on july 4th, there is no federal government either. there is just the state. our first federal government is formed through the articles of confederation. but there's a problem. and the problem isn't possibly what you've been taught. you see, popular teaching teaches the articles of confederation sales because we created the federal government too small. the implication is that max was much bigger and much more powerful and that simply is not

true. when you look at the debates in history, use 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 is not that the article of confederation created a federal government that was too small. they created a federal government that had insufficient guide and on how to do what they were supposed to do. so like governments, without proper guidance in proper checks, they will do things they are not supposed to do, which they work. but there are also doing the things they were supposed to do, but not doing them properly. for example, one of the biggest point this convention was the article of confederation had to do with treaty.

treaties of the power delegated to the federal government. only under the article of confederation, the federal government was making an equity treaties. they were making treaties with foreign government in which one state or a set of seeds had to foot the whole bill and then a completely different state of completely different that if states got all the benefit. the states who are being required to pay for the expenses that the treaty were obviously in opposition. are you kidding me? that is not why we joined this union. so they can transfer our prosperity to another state. that is not what general welfare means. and they were refusing, righteously so, refusing to comply with these trading. the states were supposed to get all the benefits are now mad at

the states who won't pay the bill. but we have an even bigger problem because the treaty is a contract with the foreign government. a foreign government minded that has no idea how we are supposed to be working. so they have no idea that the federal government has made and i'm awful treaty. all they see as they made a contract with the 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. so congress is like look, this is not going to work. we have to pull together a new delegation. we have to fix these articles of confederation and the constitutional convention is called. it does not amend the articles of federation because the

articles of confederation are not what we operate under now. but we operate under now is the constitution and the constitution is actually declared valid to be a more perfect union. that is why it is called the more perfect union because it was supposed to be more perfect than the articles of confederation. now we are going to learn a little bit later 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 are going to have a new contract, you have to get rid of the old contract and that is exactly what is happening. now, when we get rid of the articles of confederation, what happens to the central government that it created? it is gone, too, right? so right now, prior to the ratification of our current constitution, there is no federal government.

there is only the state. we also know that to be true from facts and history. how many of you remember from your history class for 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 it. 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 unions. 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 pretty much tell us that there is no central government anymore?

we have over a third teen years were the only consistent government that exists without interruption is the state. 13 years. 13 years before the federal government. the states came first. in order to understand the role of the state, we must understand what it means to be a state. 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 in the last paragraph of the declaration of independence. the state is not a colony. now this last paragraph of the

declaration of independence actually comes from the first paragraph of the lee resolution. it says we therefore the representatives of the united states of america in general congress assembled appealing to the supreme judge of the of our intention to in the name of the good people at these colonies solemnly publish and declare. we didn't become independent july 4th. we published an declared but we had done two days prior, that these united colonies are out to be briefed. we just discovered what we are not, as state is not a colony. there must be distinction, right? if there is no distinction between a colony in a state, there's no point in making. it is a redundancy. what is the difference between a colony and state? simply, a colony is not

independent. if you live in a colony, you may seek permission indictments before you can use your land. you must seek permission indictments from the federal government before you can use or manage resources. you must seek permission indictments from the government before you can create laws that regulate businesses, even before you can educate their people if you are a colony. anybody feel like a colony out there? here's the good news. we are not colonies. we are free and independent states. going by the state is not is not as good as knowing what it is. here we note it is not a colony, so what is that? continuing now with the declaration of independence, we

know that day, free and independent states from all allegiance to the british crown and that all political connection between them and the what? the state of what? state of great britain. the word state is not simply synonymous with new hampshire, rhode island or virginia. the word state is synonymous with great written, france and germany. we made third team free and independent sovereign government now that's beautiful, isn't it? that is a great explanation. but we can go even further because the declaration of independence not only tells us that the state is, that tells us the power that each and every state holds.

the people through the authority of the people have delegated this power to teach free and independent state. they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances and to all other acts and things, which independent states like great britain, france or germany may of right do. and this is the power your state holds today. now someone might try to explain this away and simply say, well if your stated on a per third, the problem is that it's not historically accurate. that is not politically accurate. that's not legally accurate or cause additional accurate. there is a doctrine called the equal footing.tran says every

state that enters the union enters on the same footing as the first 13 and there's your footprints. full power to conclude peace, establish commerce, do all things that each and every sovereign independent government on the planet has the right to do. someone might try to say that maybe who you were when you formed the state. but when you entered the union, you surrender your power. that is ridiculous. but it's all so illegally and accurate, constitutionally and accurate. what is the can't do to shed say about power? the 10th amendment says that power is not delegated.

it doesn't say that power is not surrendered. the powers not delegated. let me ask you a question. are the words delicate and surrender is synonymous? absolutely not. give yourselves a hand. you now know more than the supreme court of the united states. i have actually read supreme court opinions written by justice antonin scalia that declares that the states surrendered power and that's simply not what happened. let me ask you a question. how many of you have ever heard of a sovereign government by the name of germany? some of you don't know germany. okay. didn't germany join the european union? will hold a big town hall meeting that will explain to the german people and their chancellor that because they joined the e.u., germany is no

longer a sovereign government. i do think the germans will take that little piece of news? so why do floridian? our states were created with the greater sovereignty and germany could ever imagine. our states were created on the principle that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. germany was created under the principle that kings delegate rates. we were created with a greater sovereignty and yet somehow we expect a greater servitude. what is the nature of this can't did to shannon that we are trying to operate, trying to

apply properly? well, the constitution legally speaking as a compact. it is a legally binding compact. it is a compact is an agreement between legally sovereign government. that is how you distinguish a compact from a contract. a contract is an agreement between legally sovereign people. when i say legally sovereign, you've achieved the egg of legal consent. your 15-year-old is not sovereign in the eyes of the law. still some work to his parents. they compact is what our constitution is. we know that because that is what the drafters of the constitution call it and they compact is an agreement between legally sovereign state. what is the structure of the compact?

how does that work? the state or the parties to the compact. the compact is a legally binding agreement between sovereign government, going back to what we party learned, cannot dean r.., what were the only legally sovereign government that existed prior to the ratification of our constitution. the states. since we know that the constitution is a compact and an agreement between the governments that we must admit that the states are the parties to that compact because they are the only ones that exist. the states then the central government is the product. did the federal government to

exist prior to the ratification of the constitution. they existed once the constitution became a legally binding contract. now someone might try to tell you that i'm banding are misapplying the truth and that the constitution is an agreement between the people and the federal government. that is not true. and you can prove that falls with one simple fact. was the cons to touche unratified by popular vote of the people? no. how is the constitution ratified? through the states. the representatives of the people, but through their state. someone might try to tell you that the constitution is an agreement between the state and the federal government. there are people i endearingly

referred to in our society today as federal supremacist. these are people that try to explain the federal government is superior to the state and all cases are in the very least is coequal with the states. the coequal position will try to support by saying the constitution is an agreement between the states and federal government. that is a temporal impossibility. because you see the central government is the product of the contracts. you cannot be a party to the contract if you are the product of the contract. you cannot sign a contract into legal bean if you do not exist until the contract is signed. and the only sovereign government that existed who could be the party of the contractor this day. the central government is the product.

knowing that the states of the party and the central government is the product, then we must know that the state are the creators of the central government, right? if the states created the constitution which granted the government and created the central government. when they created the central governmengovernmen t, they created a limited central government. they enumerated it specific power and then they did the most important thing they could have ever done. they reserved all other powers to themselves. the powers not delegated to the united states are reserved to the states and to the people respectively. now we need to ask what powers delegated. because we are going to keep the federal government and its designated power structure as

required by the cons to touche and, then we have to know what power has been delegated. we also need to know what is delegated. what does that term mean? we don't have to have the supreme court give us our ultimate opinion on the powers delegated to the federal government. we don't have to interpret anything because james madison, the father of our constitution wrote it down. in a document that we call federalist 45, he said the powers delegated. there is that word again. this is a very, very important work and ending the right and the duty of the state and their power over the federal government. the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. we put them in a box.

he says those that remain in this state are numerous and indefinite. madison does that leave the definition of that. he's going to get downright specific now. he says the farmer, meaning the powers delegated to the federal government will be exercised principally on external objects. that is how our framers refer to foreign affairs. he names the specific powers as war, peace, negotiation, foreign commerce. he says the power will come from these forward delegated powers. not education. not environment, not welfare. the power was to be reserved to

these foreign commerce delegations. let me ask you because this list of power should look familiar to you. didn't we just see this power resting somewhere else in minutes ago? where was that? but the states. remember, the declaration of independence that the state has full power to levy war concluded peace, contract alliances, establish commerce and do all their things which independent states may do. let's look at this. the federal government has been delegated by power. if someone has delegated for peace negotiation and foreign commerce to the federal government, who is delegated that power to the federal government? the states. that's why this word is so important. but look at the definition of

the word delegate. delegate, a temporary trust of responsibility over it already by a higher power to a lower power. wow. we just established by fact, by history, by constitution that the state's delegated power to the federal government. that means that the states are the higher power and the federal government is the lower power. not only does come and this is the distinction between delegates and surrender. to delegate is a temporary trust. it is like an employee or 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, what if they do the job wrong?

as the employer, do i have to keep allowing them to do the job wrong? no. because i never surrendered the power. they simply delegated it to my employee and once the employee failed to operate and not authority over responsibility to weigh the higher power dictate is within the rightful authority of the higher power to pull that power from the lower power, firing them. when the alternative premise stating you will do it way we want you to do it or you will be fired. so what power has been reserved? war, peace, negotiation, foreign commerce, foreign affairs in delegated to the federal government by the state to the federal government. what powers have been reserved?

guess what, we don't have the gas. we don't have to file a lawsuit and take it to the supreme court for them to announce to us the powers that are reserved to the state because james madison, the father of the constitution has saturday told us and through the ratification of the constitution, the states have declared madison to be correct. he says continuing and federalist 45, the power is what? reserved to the several states. the word several doesn't mean a few. it means separating independent. extend to all. what this all mean? well, it's sort of begs the question of clarity because we know we have a government elects to redefine the meaning of the word is.

so as long as we are all in agreement, extends to all the objects in which in the very course of affairs are the options. the ordinary course of his concerns the life, liberty, property of the people. the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state. what about the epa and fda and bureau of land management? whoops, property of the people, right? what about the department of education, hhs, usda? lives of the people. what about the fbi, dhs, sbc, ftc, faa, atf, department of energy. the list grows, right? what are those things? internal order improvement and

prosperity of the state, 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? so that the states can't retain the integrity of the cons to touche in and maintain the federal government and its limited few and defined authority. look at this. in 1830, we were experiencing many of the things that we are. seen today. a federal government coming outside of its few and defined not in the states trying to push

it back in. some people think in the federal government should do these things. some people think in the federal government should not do these things. a period of history called the great debate of american history. 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 state the right to protect their reserved powers. that's a pretty bold statement declaring the states have a right to do something. why would they have a right to protect their reserved power? because they are reserved. let's look at the word reserved. it means to exercise dominion over things to the exclusion of all others. inc. about this.

if there is a chair on the stage and on the chair is a sign that says reserved to krisanne hall. if someone else is in that chair, what do i have the right to do? kick them out, right? if the chair says reserved to krisanne hall and i don't have the right to kick them out, is the chair reserved? no. by establishing through form and function that the state powers are reserved, do people in creating the state and the states had ratified the constitution declared that these powers are the property of the state to exercise dominion over exclusion of everybody else to include the federal government. there is a very important

consequence of denying the power of reserved. calhoun size if the states do not have the right to protect their reserved power, then what you are actually declaring is that it is the federal government too has the right to determine finally and exclusively the at the limit of its own power. and if the federal government can determine the limits of its own power, then what is the limit of the federal government power? there is none. their road will and a government limited only by its will is not a cons to touche in the republic. it is a totalitarian kingdom. now let's think about this. going back and connect in our building blocks.

the constitution is what kind of document? is a compact and a compact disc? an agreement between sovereign government between sovereign states. but if the state must admit to everything the federal government says without question are the state sovereign? no. if the states are not sovereign, can they create a legally binding contract? no. so the states are not sovereign, it they cannot protect their reserved property, if the federal government can dictate to the state how it operates, 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 we want government to operate and we have to change how our state up rate within the republic. because if the state simply act we asked, then we are not a republic anymore.

we are a kingdom. what happens in the federal government uses in delegated power? thomas jefferson explains what happens. keith has been the general government assumes i'm delegated powers, its acts are an authoritative, lloyd and his mouth sores. let's look at that for just a second. but jefferson is saying is that when the federal government uses power outside of the constitution, it is stealing power from the state. how is he saying that? what is your name, sir? gary. okay, for this analogy, we are going to pretend i have just stolen jerry's car. do i ask the authority to drive jerry's car? no, i do not.

do i have the authority to use those jerry's car? no, i do not because my power over jerry's car was not legally delegated. it is a non-delegated power. that means any act by exercise over jerry's car is an authoritative, void and of no force because i've stolen it. i do not have legal possession of his card. does kerry have to sue me to get his car back? no. he simply provide the title ii the local officials and they have to return the car to head as the rightful, legal owner of that property. jefferson is explaining to last that when the federal government uses power outside the constitution, and it is stealing power from the state because the power has been reserved to the

state. it is their rightful, legal property and the federal government is using their property without proper legal delegation. do they stay have to sue the federal government to get their power back? absolutely not. they simply have to provide the title of tea to their power. what is the title deed to their power? the constitution. do you know the state is suing the federal government to get their power back is not only unnecessary, it is ridiculous and dangerous. the states suing the federal government to get their power back his leg gary suing me to get his car back, shoving up in court and finding out the judge and jury are all my family members. right? because the states are suing the federal government where? in federal court, where the

judges are appointed i the federal government. that is a stacked cart. and give them the progression of our federal court today, do we have any reasonable expectation that our courts will decide against federal power in favor of the state in 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 reduce to being tributary slaves to an oligarchy of nine kings and queens are we are left with a

rod of iron. why must the state's check federal power? because it is the peaceful, rightful remedy and it is their duty to do so. in 1799, we are experiencing in other circumstances that today, a federal government coming out of its viewing the find box. the states trying to enforce the constitutional contract and keeping then and there to find box. in this period of time, we have the legislators at the state of virginia given a general assembly address it at all, save look, we have the job and the duty that's above everything else. the number one job description of your state and local

government is not economic improvement. the number one responsibility of your state and local government is not business regulation, education or security. the number one responsibility of your state and local government is that these legislators and 1999 declared to be the guardians of the state sovereign. why must they guard the state sovereignty? because they have taken a solemn oath i do swear i will support and defend the constitution of the united states. because remember, we previously established that states are not offer an independent, they cannot make a legally binding contract. if they cannot make a legally binding contract, the cons duchenne is dissolved and the union does not exist. there is no republic. it is the obligation of the

state and local government under their own to maintain the sovereignty of the state. what is the greatest attack on the sovereignty of the state? federal encroachment. every dollar that your state and local government takes, and a dollar, 1 dollar from the federal government two years date and local government ends their sovereignty. right? because who pays the piper dictates that to you. and then the states and local government must operate according to the dictates of the federal government in order to keep that funding. before a bond, you may have a population of people who think they can not survive without federal money. the creation dictating over the

creator. that is another ration. how do we see these federal encroachments? they say the federal encroachment they can't see you closed with the pretext of necessity. because you know we must have national health care, right? of course it must have national health care. to put care. to put on a national health care, we are all going to die. i've got bad news for you. we are all going to die. but when the federal government is spending health care, the only thing that will be established through national health care is the federal government will decide when, where and how you die. they said not only will it be close to the pretext necessity, they will be disguised by the argument that expediency because you know we have to pass a bill to read the bill here in sound

familiar? there's not a new under the sun. human nature never changes. as the samples of government, same reaction of people existed in 1799 existing today and those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. what are the consequences of these federal encroachments? they said that they will expose us to establish precedence of all the consequences of this are power. because you see, the lion with his head out of the cage is his whole body. and when you let the lion out of the cage, you shouldn't be surprised when he died your head off. that is why we put them in a feeling defined box.

what must the state do? the father of our constitution james madison tells us that the state must do. in the case of deliberate and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted who? the states have the right to interpose. madison says the state has the right to step in between the federal government exercise of power to defend the rights and liberties of the people. why did they have the right to do that? because their power is reserved. they have a right to keep the federal government off their power because the power has been reserved to them. but notice that madison is they not only have a right, they are duty bound to interpose. can we all agree that a duty is greater than a right? why are our states duty-bound?

because we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights back to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government. there is only one reason government to exist. there's only one reason the authority of people created free and independent state and that was to secure our right. and if the state are not stepping between the federal government and living to its feeling defined powers, then they are failing to accompt wish the single purpose for their existence and that's why they have a duty. how does the state interpose? thomas jefferson explains the process of interpretation.

when the federal states who formed the constitution being black? sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge its infractions because they are the creators of the contract. the notification by those sovereignty is, at this stage is the rightful remedy. what is notification? what is a sovereign state? a sovereign state is the right to protect their reserved powers. a sovereign state is massive rejection of all government and the commission of violent against government officials. the nullification is not a state refusing to comply with all federal government. notification is a state saying you stole my car and i'm not

letting you drive it anymore. i am taking the keys back and they simply will not comply but stolen authority. that is the altercation is. if we are more accurate about our analogy, let's just assume now that kerry has gone on vacation for three weeks to the bahamas. or he's been in a coma for the last 150 years. the day gary goes on vacation, i steal his car. ..

in an in the change that to a legal authority. it is still stolen. it is still unlawful. there are people, my federal supremacy as friends who assert that nullification is not a rightful remedy. what they will say is nullification is not the rightful 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 he and the circuit courts to announce the constitution. i'm sorry, we announced that in 1789. is this a proper interpretation of the authority of the supreme court. can the supreme court determine its own authority? that's what they've done. the constitution does not delegate the ultimate definitive authority of the constitution to the court, it is a power they secured for themselves through a series of their own opinions. wouldn't you like to live in that kind of universe where you can just write your own power? look at what madison says in

1800. if the decisions of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the constitution, who are the sovereign parties of the constitution? let's say it like that, why don't we? if the decisions of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the states, dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by other departments, but that they judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grants 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 but one delegated authority as well as by another.

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 though the judiciary, any power they exercise is power that has been delegated to it by the states, which means that the states are the higher power and the federal government is the judiciary, the supreme court is the lower power if the supreme court, being part of the whole can define the power of the whole, then what is the limit to the whole power? it's unlimited by only its will.

now your federal supremacist friend will try to assert you that madison has changed 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. how many of you have heard the phrase context is king? one of the examples they will give you as this one. madison is speaking to the house of representatives during the ratification for the bill of rights. he is trying to assert that the bill of rights will be safely inserted into the constitution because the court will be in a unique position to guard our right. there was an argument that if we put a list of rights in the bill of rights that the federal

government would use that list against us. someone in government will usurp our rights and us 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 one of the federal government to regulate it or we would've put it on the list of rights. if it's on it's on the list of rights, how do we know what it is? we do you a favor. we will define these rights for you so we don't usurp or infringe or abridge upon your rights. madison said, look, we can have a bill of rights and the federal government will not abuse those rights. the legislative or executive power will not abuse those rights because the judiciary

will be an impenetrable work against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive power. you see state in that list? no. the check of the judiciary is a check on the legislative and executive, not on the power of the state. you see, madison doesn't end here because his very next statement is establishing what we have already established by fact and history and truth. he says, besides the security of the courts limiting the executive and legislative branches, there is a great probability that the bill of rights will be enforced because the state legislators will closely watch the operations of this government. why will our state legislature legislators be jealously and closely watching? because they have a duty to preserve their reserved power.

he said, the state legislators will be able to resist with more effect, every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do. the greatest opponent to a federal government admits the state legislators to be the sure guardians of the people's liberty. your state state and local governments are supposed to be the greatest opponents to the federal government, not their best friend, coworkers and coworkers and on the same payroll. it is their duty to limit the federal government power to the few and defined so that we can have our liberty guarded. look at what jefferson says in 1812, already in 1812, the great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. the body like gravity ever acting with noiseless foot and on alarming advance, gaining ground step-by-step and holding

what it gains. it's in golfing, insidiously the special governments into the job he is talking about the president of the court writing their own power and then compounding power upon parlor through president upon president until they engulf all. he said our government will become as oppressive as the government from which we separated. we will be functioning as an oligarchy of kings and queens and not as a constitutional republic. i just want to ask this question, why should we have this faith in the supreme court to be the defenders of our liberty? how can we give in their history. is a supreme court that said he could not be a citizens of the united states because he is a black man. dred scott. this was not the constitution

that declared counts him to be property, it was the supreme court interpreting a romulus erroneously the constitution for dred scott to be property and not people. what about the supreme court that said yes, it's okay to indefinitely detain japanese-american, 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 the federal power and that's why they were never delegated this authority. does the supremacy clause prohibit their states from the rightful remedy? your federal supremacist friend will say 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 said no legislative act contrary to the constitution can be valid. that is exactly what the supremacy clause says, by the way. let's look at it. the supremacy clause, article 6, section, section two of the constitution declares, this constitution and the laws of the united states which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. you see, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. nothing else has to happen. it is the constitution therefore it is supreme. however, the laws created by congress, and may also say the regulations made by agencies are only the supreme law of the land when they are made in pursuant to the constitution.

not every law is supreme. only the law that fit under the constitution. you can't have federal law and constitution on equal footing because then all it takes is one law that supersedes the constitution and the constitution is not supreme anymore. if the constitution is not supreme, from where does the congress get their authority? just themselves. hamilton is telling us that if the federal government is creating laws that are not consistent with the constitution, they are no law at all. what obligation do we have two find ourselves to be bound by a law that has no legal fact. the only obligation that rest

appear because there is no legal one. there is no constitutional one. is the states rightful remedy constitutional? some of will try to tell you notification is not in the constitution. you can look for that word every day and you'll never find her and therefore nullification is unconstitutional. let's let's look at the constitution. the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. let me ask you something, if nullification is not in the constitution, what does that tell us? it's not a power that's delegated, right? if? if it's not a power that's delegated, it's what? it is reserved to the states. by not being in the constitution it says that the power reserved to the states and it is their

duty to do so. what does the supreme court say today about notification? you all know this guy, right justice roberts you see, your federal supremacist friends won't talk about about this opinion and you won't see this in the media. this is justice roberts majority opinion in the first affordable care act decision. i will read to you what he says. he says we look to the state to defend their prerogative by adopting the simple expedient of not yielding when they do not want to embrace federal policies as her own. that is the chief justice of the supreme court of the united states in the majority opinion telling the states you need to nullify. and then look what he says.

>> this should eliminate every single doubt in our federal supremacist mine. he says the states are separate and independent sovereigns, and they have to act like it. what you say. is it about time we start acting like it? how can you dispute that? is the states rightful remedy lawful? someone will try to say that the state can't nullify federal law. what if they nullify federal law. how will we know what's lawful and what's not lawful for the states who refuse to comply with federal law on whatever and however they choose. they don't like a law so they won't follow it. they will be in arcuri throughout the country. nobody will know what's lawful and what's not. here's the problem what controls

the federal government? the states. why? because nullification is not the states on acting unlawfully, it's the states in forcing the supreme law of the land when the federal government is acting unlawfully. states are not allowed to nullify or 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 when we have one? what is the purpose of the constitution if the federal

government can make whatever it wants? if the federal government is not limited in the power by the constitution than what is the limit of the federal government's power? the only limit to the federal government's power in a proper check and balance is when the states tell its creation you can only do what we've delegated you to do. anything beyond that is null and void and no law at all. how do we start? what do we start doing nullifying? well remember what jefferson said. when all government, domestic and foreign shall be drawn into washington as the the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government over another. notice he didn't say one branch over the other.

he said one government over the other. what is the government that's supposed to be checking over the other government? the states over the federal government. he even goes on to say, if the state look with apathy on this silent dissent of their government into the golf which is to swallow all, we have have only to weep over the human character formed uncontrollable by a rod of iron. our states must take control. if our states refuse to take control then our states are simply declaring they are not states, they are colonies and we are not free, we are subjects. i ask you, why do we have states why do we even need state government if that's how they're going to operate. they were created as independent sovereign governments. if they want to act like

colonies, why do we have them at all? if they are going to defend the constitution, if they they are going to defend our liberties we need state and local legislators asserting the states power. we need state and local legislating denying an authorized federal power. in the meantime we need a share of state and local officials standing in defense of the rights and liberty 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 no and void. states have a rightful remedy. it is not an invention that it is not an interpretation, it's not a new idea. it was established by the nature

of the constitution being a contract. it remains because the states are still separate and independent and it is their duty because we created them to protect our rights and liberty and that is what we, the people must strive for. [applause] now, if you enjoyed this presentation, there is a book on the back table, sovereign duty, sovereign duty, the lesson that i taught you comes from that book. how many of you liked the slides in the quotes? this book teaches not just what i taught you tonight, it teaches about the nature of the

constitutional sheriff, it has a lesson on your right to keep and bear arms, your right to be secure and your property. it has a lesson on article 5, conventions that that have a lesson on nullification, specifically, and in this book every quote and every document cited, i give you my original source in the back of the book. i give you all my research why? because i believe we have to stop believing people in what they say simply because they hold a microphone, stand on stage, there on the news or they call themselves professor or judge. we need to start questioning and finding the original source to all truth so that we can be the defenders of our liberties. you see, i don't don't want you to believe a 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 conclusion, and if you test me then you will be the expert and then we will have a boldness to stand before our legislators, our sheriffs and local government and say you must defend our liberty and we will not come why. [applause] now here is our contact information. my husband told you about the radio show and the television show but here's all those things in case you need to write them down. we are going to do a crit contract question and answer session. it won't be very long but we want to make sure we have the

opportunity to do question-and-answer, but this is what i want us us to know, there are rules to the question and answers. rule number one, you must come up to the front and speak into the microphone. rule number two, do not not take the microphone off the stand. rule number three and i feel is more important than rule number one and number two, you must have a question, and you must get to your question quickly because, i don't know most of you. i'm a rather bold spoken person and i'm not afraid to say i'm sorry, where's your question. if you want to debate me on an 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 and talk about your particular subject. so let's make sure we get to the questions quickly so we can get as many questions answered as possible in this limited 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 don't need you to think i know everything about everything. we will do 15 minutes of question and answer, and we need you to come out and line up at the microphone. this will be microphone a. this will be be. >> question is, how can we be effective as local people of our county and of our state? how can we do this effectively as far as reaching a representative?

what do we do. >> that's a very good question and i would like to answer it like i like to answer all of those. not in my opinion but through the words of the men who created our constitution. samuel adams said, no people will painfully surrender their liberties or be easily subdued when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. he sat on the contrary when the people become universally ignorant they will sink underneath their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders. how do you become an effective champion for liberty, rights and limited government? you must first get educated. you must get educated so that you will notice when your rights are being usurped. you must notice, you must get

educated so you can be righteously upset when that happens and you must get educated so you can educate your county commissioners, your city councilman, your sheriff, your state government, and hopefully get educated so you won't elect people that need further education. this is what we have to do. we must be jealous and vigilant of our rights, but we cannot do that if we do not 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. everyone agreed? don't even lip-synch the answer. there are five liberties in the first amendment.

to yourself, name all five they found out that only 2% of the people hold could name all five. here's my question to you. if you do not know what you're rights are, how do do you know that they're not already gone. that's why education is always the first step. >> my name is frank powers. do you think we should have a constitutional amendment with terms of federal judges. >> the question is, i don't know, did everybody here the question. do we need term limits for federal judges. >> we have term limits for federal judges.

it's called good behavior. just this is do not have lifetime appointment. that's something we need to change up here. they have appointments on good behavior. you know that really means? that means, we are supposed to be watching the behavior of our justices, the way we monitor kindergarten class. the minute a judge behaves badly he is supposed to be removed. there is no vote necessary. there is no time limit. 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 more years to go away? that might be what happens because no one wants to impeach and then we will have ten years

of guaranteed bad behavior. the problem does not exist in the limits of the judicial appointment. the problem exists in an impotent and useless congress that refuses to engage in their necessary check and balances how many of you listen to my radio show? on my radio show i've been talking a lot about judicial abuse. do you know we have supreme court justices right now that own hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock in companies they regularly here before them in the courtroom? do you know their wives own stock in companies that they hear, that are parties to the discussion in the courtroom justice kagan, who was solicited general and created the argument

in favor of the affordable care act is 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 in that state law came before the supreme court. not only that, justice ginsburg sat before the entire world in an interview with in gypsy and reporter and said egypt should not use the u.s. constitution as a model because of not refutable. it was written by racist, misogynistic men and could not be used as a model today. our supreme court justice has

taken an oath that they will support and defend the constitution of united states without hesitation or mental reservations. what justice ginsburg did was bad behavior. we have justices in the circuit courts, in oregon, oregon, that refused to allow defendants to read the first amendment because the constitution is not relevant in her courtroom. that is bad behavior. we need to exercise the authorities that we have been the only way that will happen is when we know what they are and demand that they happen. >> are you aware of the confederacy of the states movement that has been started. >> i am not aware. >> i don't think anyone else's. it's on the internet. it is a step toward what you were talking about. >> i can't speak on it, i'm not familiar with it. >> check it out.

>> okay, yes, ma'am. >> how do we apply your principle of state sovereignty to the issue of immigration. >> that is a very good question. 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 empowered to create a uniform rule of naturalization the presidents obligation is to faithfully execute the law of the united states, meaning, it is the presidents obligation to faithfully execute the uniform rule of naturalization.

now, what kind of document is the constitution? it is an agreement between the states. it is a a contract between the states, and every state in the union has agreed to the terms of that 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 those rules or cannot comply with those laws, but not immigrant is illegal, and as a state, agreeing to the con terms of the contract, the state has an obligation to abide by the terms of the contract, and that is why sanctuary cities are not lawful notification. sanctuary cities are nullifying a law that has been

constitutionally created under proper delegated authority. those states that harbor sanctuary cities are actually violating their contractual agreement. now because our immigration system has become muddied with the term refugee, we also also have to address this as well. a uniform rule of naturalization , that's what immigration is supposed to be. however, refugees status is not a uniform rule and it is not a pathway to naturalization. therefore, refugee status is an unconstitutional established delegation of a person's residency. that is why the state and the governors have the authority to

refuse to accept refugees because the power of refugee status is in an delegated authority and therefore it is null and void. not only do they have the authority to refuse refugees, but 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 an interstate compact that will secure our borders and reassert the states 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 is insuring that the state is in compliance with proper federal law and that is one of the remedies we can have, asserting our authority. we have an obligation. if i can just add one more point, do you know every state that offers in-state tuition to an alien is violating federal law it is unlawful according to federal law and the uniform rule of naturalization, it is unlawful to hide, harbor or

higher or house and illegal alien. subject to ten years in prison for every single violation. what does it say when we are prosecuting individuals for violating that crime or those laws, but we allow our representatives to violate those laws with no 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. how can the city council and assert their authority and what can we do to stop it back i understand what you are saying. you're absolutely right. we have to get educated. in the meantime, we are all at risk. we need to do the right thing. we need to be able to say what is our path that we have to follow in order to get this under control? the first statement you said, they are doing this without our knowledge. most people don't know that. okay, that's that's the first step, the education. remember we are suffering these attacks on our liberty because we don't know why are we

allowing these threats to come into your community, denying their responsibility in federal law to protect our rights and liberty. how many do you think there are people in state and local government because that do that because they don't know any better. >> how many of you think there are people in state and local government who are that because they have sacrificed principal at the altar of pragmatism. how many people think they're doing this because they are wicked, greedy, evil and they want money and power. here's the question at the end of the day, what difference is the motivation. james otis junior, a who fought for our liberty says i have come

to despise those whose guilt, malice or folly has made them my foe. guilt, sacrificing principal on the altar pragmatism. malice, greed, power. folly, ignorance. what would once we get educated on what is happening, we have to become dedicated to the principal that will allow us to look at these county commissioners, look at these city councilman, councilman, look at these state legislators, look at our government and say you are my foe regardless of your motivation, which means you cannot continue to support them in their reelection regardless of the political party politics.

liberty over security, principle over party, and truth over personality. you see, government will do a lot of things that we are not looking, but they will never ever do what we want them to do unless we make them do it. if we continually reaffirm their guilt, malice and folly through reelection, we are actually giving them our consent and permission to be immoral and to destroy our liberty. >> hello, thank you for being here. what you believe we should do about all the corporation structure, and my second question would be about the oath of office is, in the florida constitution, in the statutes,

there are two different oaks. one of them pledges that there is support and defend the government. two questions. >> part of being, i will beat you from a federal perspective. each and every state is different. then we will address the florida issue because i am a floridian and i understand how this works for you which is different from every other state. the powers delegated to the federal government are enumerated and defined. within that power is not a power to regulate within the states. what happens to federal grants, through federal regulations, the

federal government is picking winners and losers, 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 seed were blowing into their field, corrupting their heirloom crops. the farmers tried to sue monsanto to keep their crop, their seeds from corrupting their crop. the farmers did not prevail.

monsanto filed a counter suit suing the farmers for patent infringement because their seeds were blowing onto the farmers property and they were stealing patented property. what's even worse is congress has created regulations that protect monsanto from lawsuit, protect pharmaceuticals from lawsuit, making them have immunity from lawsuits for their product. once again 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, in florida, what powers are reserved to the state? well, a power reserved to the state would be to regulate this. the problem is the creation of public, private associations. that is when you have a government funding private industry because they have deemed it to be a matter of public enforcement, like an airport. the airports are privately owned. your airlines are privately owned. they get prophet yet your tax dollars are used to build them. do you see any profit from that? the idea is the tax revenue pays that off, but when the government can partner up, then they are picking winners and losers again, and regulation of

business doesn't stop any kind, it doesn't prevent any real harm to the people either. let me give you an example. we are missionaries to haiti. when one of our trips to haiti, we stayed with the family in their home and i love to bake and so did the lady of the house. in haiti, they make these things called pate, the spanish call them and cannot. they are pastries stuffed and fried. i was teaching my hostess how to make mango cream cheese pate. we are making it and frying it and putting powdered sugar on it, they never had anything like it, they thought it was amazing. she said this to me she said madame, madame, let's go to the

market and get a bunch of cream cheese, a bunch of mango and all the things we need, we will make a huge batch and go to the market and sell them the haitian people will love them. we will never make enough to last the whole day. i said, you know, if i had that idea in america and i made up my mango cream cheese and walked down to the street corner and try to sell them, i would be arrested because in america, if i want to sell my food to the public i must get a permit from the government to sell them publicly. then i must also get a permit to make them in my home. that i must pay them for the privilege of inspecting my home to make sure i am creating the bingo desert in a way that is compliant with the government

rule, and then as i put put up my standing as i sell my main goals desert, i will have to put aside a portion portion of the sweat of my brow and the labor to pay the government for the privilege of selling what i have created. she said while. [laughter] she said, that's not the america i thought it was. you know, it's interesting, in haiti, if you have a cow and it produces too much milk that day, you go and sell it to your neighbors. there's no one dying of mad caught cow disease but they have these yearly festivals where you have a big feast and you slaughter a cow which is a huge thing or 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, you hang it off a tree limb and as

people come by, you hack off pieces and sell it. people are not dropping dead in haiti from e. coli. you see, government regulation does not end disease or sickness , and just like laws don't stop crimes, regulations don't either. do you know that for every legitimate regulation of a business, there is already a criminal statute that covers that behavior. we don't need too. what we need to do is enforce the law on people equally. 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

deaths of their people. we said instead of enforcing the laws on these people, we will regulate them instead. has medical malpractice ended? has corporate pollution ended? has corporate abuse of employees ended know because laws don't stop crimes and neither do regulations. what they do do is make politicians and lobbyists that. to answer your question, once again it's back to education how you limit your government? you understand that you can't have liberty if you can't own your property and if the government is regulating 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? what was the last one? [applause] >> this will be our last question. what was the second question because i didn't get it? >> i was speaking more of the government corporations, the state of florida is a corporation. >> oh, i don't get into that sort of thing. that is outside my wheelhouse. >> okay. >> that is outside of the federal constitution. >> okay, thank you. [applause] >> thank you all for coming. >> the national book critics circle awards are given annually to honor the best books

published in the united states. according to the organization which is composed of close to 600 critics. the awards are presented in categories of nonfiction, biography, autobiography, fiction and poetry. here's a look of the general nonfiction finalist. social science professor matthew desmond evicted, provides a study of homelessness and poverty in the united states. even candy looks at the history of racism in stamped from the beginning. new yorker staff writer jane meyer investigates the political influence of billionaires in dark money. also nominated for this year's national award for nonfiction is pulitzer prize-winning author and book nothing other dies which offers his thoughts on the vietnam war.

this year's national book critics circle award winners will be announced in new york city. book tv has covered many of the authors over the past year. you can find the program on our website, booktv.org. >> in 1977, they were making a speech in parliament in egypt, and he put down his papers and he said i would go anywhere, i would go to the ends of the earth, i would go to israel if it would save one more egyptian life. nobody believed it. they applauded -- it wasn't even mentioned in the newspapers the next day. ten days later his plane is circling over tel