many of you here already know us san or how many visitors know that she is a native of st. louis missouri with her bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry from blackburn college in illinois. jury and the united states army trash - - training is a russian linguist and she worked for the state attorney's office says a

prosecutor after graduating the college of law and worked under jerry blair and went to work at a constitutional law firm then came back again to the state attorney's office working in under the honorable steve jarvis and was providential a launched from there into speaking about private liberty's head the constitution profession travel said teaches an average of 265 defense in 22 states since the launching. she has a radio show in addition to all of that six days a week. one is broadcast as a

television show of the christian television network and to many more things. a plumber, even teeth, biochemists, a paralegal, attorney, and the labels that she carries would be mother, wife, christian and patriot. [applause] >> the slogan is liberty over secure 80 truth over your favorite personality. she takes a lot of slack because she holds the belief that we should protect and abide by the constitutional principles matter which party is in is in power. please will come.

>> okay. here we go. i am very excited to be here it is always swarming to my heart to be a home. you can imagine and teaching every year. we are blessed and happy to be here. right now there is a 77 year-old man and did federal prison right l. in because he built whiff of permission of the army corps of

engineers he antisense we don't care ever prosecute for violating the clean air act and that exemptions then. >> because. >> we have a disabled u.s. veteran so we are following

state law. we have farmers in india and a. to be harassed for having raw milk is an organic the federal government but is never government still a lot of control?

we need to find the solution . do we not? in it is nearly unanimous did i think and everybody has the adn the ligament. >> you have spent and we don't have to do because the same solutions the did existed in this solution and

did feminist and his talking about washington d.c.. when he talks about picks this everything been consolidated from big to little in washington d.c.. your environment being controlled by washington d.c. perk your right to bear arms tenderly and pure food and medicine and everything being controlled that is why washington d.c. is the gulf

to swallow. and look what he says. we only have to leap of the human character form uncontrollable but allied of iron. when the government is out of control, a society is reduced to chaos. with the checks and balances are not functioning, the only thing that can control chaos is the rod of iron. our framers gave us the greatest gift, and the opportunity to self-government. in the greatest condemnation today is the refusal to self

govern. everything is in place we just simply must be dedicated to exercising our checks and balances. how does the stay have the right to check the federal government? that is what we will go through today. . .

how does the state have a right to check the federal government? because the states came first. we need to re-establish some basic foundational principles. we need to connect some dots so that we start having off in the right direction, and we need to get back to some vary basic things, and when i many basic, many abcs and 123 and just that principle of understanding that the states came first, establishes a very important understanding of who is 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 so bears necessity to sort of re-establish the historical truth.

it n our textbook wiz teach that we became independent from great britain with the signing of the declaration of independence on july 4, 1776. that's not true. we became independent from great britain with the ratification of the lee resolution on july 2nd july 2nd 1776. the lee resolution, a three-step process to declare independence from great britain, brought forward with a delegate from the state of virginia named richard henry lee. richard henry lee proposes the lee resolution to continental congress on june 7, 1776 and on july 2, 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 elite slave owners who wanted to separate from their government so they can have the power to oppress everybody. it was a legislative act. by a duly elected legislative body andous as legallied -- and just as legally binding is a anything that our congress does today that is constitutional. matter of fact, this was such a huge day that john adams would write hem to his wife, abigail, on july 3rd and say, july 2nd will be an epic day where americans will celebrate their independence forever. it wasn't until the mid-1800's started celebrating our independence on july 4th?

so, knowing this, our states, not by opinion or interpretation but by legal fact, by historical fact, became independent states on july 2, then we must admit that the states existed prior to everything. right? prior to the declaration of independence even, by two days temp declaration -- the decoration was not fully signed on july 2nd. july 4th is when it was published to the general republic and only been sound by john hancock and not signed by the rest of the representatives of the states until the end of august. but now we have to understand, on july 2nd, is there a federal government? no, because we have just thrown it off.

on july 4th there is no federal government either. there is just the states. now, our first federal government is formed through the articles of confederation. but there's a problem. and the problem isn't probably what you have been taught. you see, popular teachings, teaches that the airlifts confederation failed -- articles of confederation failed because we create ate federal government to small and the next government was much bigger and much more powerful and that is not true. when you look the debates and you look the history, you see that the largest driving force to the reconsiderations of the article of confederation has to do with an authority that was

del grated to the federal government. the problem was not that that articles of confederation created a federal government that was too small. they created a federal government that had insufficient guidance on how to do what they were supposed to do. so, like governments, without proper guidance and proper checks they do things they're not supposed to do, which they were. but they were also doing the things they were supposed to do but not doing them properly. for example, one of the biggest points of con texas with the articles of con -- contention with the articles of confederation had to do with treaties. treaty is is a power delegated to the federal government. only thunder in the articles of confederation the federal government was making inequitable treats and the city

of states has has to foot the bill and a completely different set of states got all the benefits. now, the states who were being required to pay for the expenses of the treaty were obviously in opposition. are you kidding me? that's not why we joined this union. oso we can transfer our prosperity to another state? that's not what general welfare means and they were refusing, rightfully so refusing to comply with the treaties. now, the states who were supposed to get all the benefit are now mad the states who won't pay the bill, but we have an even bigger problem. because a treaty is a contract with a foreign government. a foreign government, mine you, that has no idea how spearessed to be working so they have no idea that the federal government has made an unlawful treaty.

all they see is they made a contract with the united states and the united states is not holding occupy their end of the bar -- up their end of the bargain. so we're most literature rally on their verge of war with states and foreign countries cos andey just got started. so congress says we have to pull together a new delegation and fix thes of confederation. and the -- the articles of confederation and the constitutional convention is call. now, the constitutional convention does not amend the articles of confederation because the articles of confederation are not what we operate under now. right? 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 perfect than

the articles of confederation. we're going to learn 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're going to have a new contract, 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 that it created? it's gone, too fright so now 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 the 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 pretty much tell us there is no central government anymore? we have over 13 years where the only consistent government that exists without interruption is the states. 13 years. 13 years before the federal government.

the states came first. in order to understand the role of 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" in 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 representative's of the united states of america, in general congress assembled, appealing to the supreme judge of the world for our intentions do 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 4th. published and declared what we had done two days prior -- that he's united colonies are, and of right ought to be free. we have just discovered what we are not. a state is not a colony. there must be a distinction, right and because if there is no distinction between a colonial and a state then there's no point in making that statement. it's a redundancy. 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 land. 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, before you canning relate your beens, even before you he can rid late your people. anybody feeling line a colony out there? here's the good news. we are not colonies. we are free and independent states. knowing what a state is not, is not as good as knowing what it is. so 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 or absolved from all allegiance to british crown. and that all political connections between them and the, what? the state of what? state of great britain.

you see that word "state" is not simply synonymous with new hampshire, rhode island, or virginia. that word "state" is synonymous with great britain, france and germany. we made 13 free and independent sovereign governments. now, that's beautiful, isn't it? that's a great explanation. but we can go even further because the declaration of independence not only tells us what the state is, but tells us the power that each and every state holds. to the people, threw the authority of the people, have delegate it this tower to each free and independent state. they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract

alliances, and do 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 state is not one of the first 13, then this does not apply to you. problem is that's not historically accurate. that is not politically accurate. that's not legally accurate or constitutionally accurate. there is a doctrine that says that every state that enters the union, enters on the same footing as the first 13. and there's your footprint. full power to havey were, conclude peace, make alleynes and establish commerce and do al

thing that each and every sovereign not country on the planet that do. someone might try to say that may be who you were when you form the state, but when you entered the union, you surrendered your power. that's ridiculous. but it's also historically inaccurately, legally inaccurate, and constitutionally inaccurate. what does the constitution say about power? the tenth amendment says the power is not delegated. it doesn't say the power is not surrendered. it says the power is not delegated. let me ask you a question. are the words "delegate" and holiday century rein surrender

sign knock muss? you now know more than the supreme court of the united states. have read decisions by antonin scalia that declare the states surrendered power and that's not what happened. let in 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 joint the european union? let's all fly over to germ nick hold a big town hall meeting and explain to the german people and their chancellor that because the joined the eu germany is no longer a sovereign government. how do you think the germans will take that little piece of news? so why do floridians?

our states were created with a greater sovereignty than germany could ever imagine. our states were created under the principle that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed the their creator with certain inalienable lights. the germany wheres create under the principle that kings delegate right. we had a greater sovereignty and yet, somehow, we accept a greater servitude. what is the nature of this constitution that we are trying to operate? trying to apply properly? well, the constitution legally speaking is a compact. it is a legally binding compact. it is a compact is an agreement between legally sovereign governments.

that is how you distinguish a compact from a contract. a contract is an agreement between legally sovereign people. and when i say legally sovereign i mean you have achieved the age of legal consent. can your 15-year-old create a legally binding contract? no, because your 15-year-old is not sovereign in eyes of the law bus our compact is our constitution and that's what the drafters of the constitution called it and a compact is an agreement between legally sovereign states. what is the structure of the compact? how does it work? the states are the parties to the compact. let think about this, the cop pact is a legally binding agreement between sovereign governments, going back to what we have already learned,

connecting our dots, what were the only legally sovereign governments that existed prior to the ratification of our constitution? the states. since we know that the states are -- that the constitution is a compact and a compact is an agreement between legally sovereign governments then we must admit the states are the pears to the compact. because they're the only ones that existed. the states then, we must know, that the central government is the product of the compact. did the federal government exist friar the -- ratification of the constitution? no. the federal government existed once the constitution became a legally binding contract. now, someone might try to tell you i'm bending or misamying the

truth and the constitution is an agreement between the people and the federal government. that is not true. and you can prove that with one simple fact. was the constitution ratified by popular vote of the people? no. how was the constitution ratified? through the states. the representatives of the people, but through their states. someone might try to tell you, that the constitution is an agreement between the states and the federal government. there are people that i endearingly refer to in our society today as federal supremacists. these are people that try to explain that the federal government is superior to the state in all cases or in the very least is coequal with the states. and those co-e -- that coequal

prognosis they we try to support by saying that 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 a party to the contract if you are the product of the contract. you cannot sign the contract into legal being if you do not exist until the contract is signed. and the only sovereign government that existed who could be the parties of the compact are the states. the central government is the product. knowing that the states are the parties, and the central government is the product, then we must know that the states are the creators of the central government. right? if the states created the constitution, which created the central government and states created the central government. and when they created the

central government, they created a limites central government. they enumerated its specific powers 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 state and to the people respectively. now, we need to ask what power is delegated? because if we're going to keep the federal government in its designated powers of 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 that term mean? let look at this.

we don't have to have the supreme court give us their 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 we call firstist 45 he says the powers delegated -- there's the word again -- a very, very important word when understanding the right and the duty of the states 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 the states are numerous and indefinite. maddison is going to get specific now.

he says the former, meaning the powers delegated to the federal government, will be exerciseed principally on experiment objects. how our framers referred to foreign affairs and then names the specific powers as war, peace, negotiations, foreign commerce. he says the power to tax will come from these four delegated powers. not education. not environment. nose welfare. the power to tax was to be reserved to these war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce delegations. now, let me ask you because this list of powers 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. remembering are the declaration of independence says the states possess full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce and do all other acts and things which independent states, great britain, france or germany, may of right do. let's look at this. the federal government has been delegated that power. if someone has delegated war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce to the federal government, who delegated that near federal government? the states. that's why this word is so important. now, let look the definition of the word "delegate." delegate: a temporary trust of responsibility or authority by a higher power to a lower power. wow.

we have just established by fact, by history, by constitution, that the states 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 this. this is the distinction between delegate and surrender. to delegate is a temporary trust. it's like an employer with an employee. if i own a business and hire someone and i say to them, i want you to do this job for me, what if they do the job wrong? die have to -- as the employer die have to keep allowing them to do the job wrong? no. because i never surrendered the power. i simply delegated it to my employee, and once the employee fails to operate in that authority or responsibility the way the higher power dictated

it's within the rightful authority of the higher power to pull that power from the lower power. firing them. or in alternative saying, you'll do it the way we want you to do it or you will be fired. so, what power has been reserved? war, peace, negotiations, foreign commerce, foreign affairs, being delegated to the federal government. by the states. to the federal government. what powers have been reserved? guess what. we don't have to guess. we don't have to file a lawsuit and then take it to the supreme court for them to announce to us the powers that are reserved to the states because james madison, the father over the constitution, has already told us and through the ratification

of the constitution, the states have declared madison to be correct. he says, continuing in federalist 45, the par is what -- the power is what, reserved 0 the several states. that word several doesn't mean a few. it means separate and independent. will extend to all -- what does all mean? all. right? well, i think we -- it sort of begs in the question of claritiy because we know we have a government that likes to refee fine the mean offering the word "is." so as long as we're in agreement all still mines all, extends to all the objects in which the -- objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, all the objects. in the ordinary course of affairs concerns the lives,

liberties, property, of the people, the internal order and improvement and prosperity of the states. what about the epa and the fda and the bureau of land management? oops. property of the people. right? what about the department of education, hhs, ufda, the sba. lives of the people. what about the fbi, the dhs, the sbc, the sec, the faa, the atf, the department of energy. the list gross, right? ...

a so that the states can retain the integrity of the constitution and maintain the federal government in its limited and it's few and defined authorities. look at this. in 1830, we were experiencing many of the things that we are experiencing today. a federal government coming outside of its box, the states trying to push it back again, some people thinking they should do these things and some thinking they should not. it is a part of history called the great debates of 1830. and in this great debate, john

calhoun is going to try to help us understand the power of the word reserved. he said the doctrine to the rights of protecting their reserved powers. that is a bold statement declaring that they have a right to do something. why would they have a right to protect the reserve power, because they are reserves. let's look at the word reserved. it needs to exercise dominion over things to the exclusion of all others. think about this. if there is a chair on this stage and on the chair is a sign that says reserved for chris and paul. if someone else sits in that chair, what do i have the right to do, kick her out.

this is reserved for chris van hall and i don't have the right, is the chair reserved? no. by establishing through form and function that the state powers are reserved for the people creating the states and the states ratifying 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. now there is a very important consequence of denying the power of reserves. and calhoun says if the states do not have the right to protect the reserve 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 if 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. the government 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, it is a compact, and a compact is an agreement between the sovereign government.

the constitution is a compact between the sovereign states, that the states must submit to everything the federal government says without question are the states of sovereign? no. if they are not, can they create a legally binding contract? no. so if the states are not sovereign and cannot 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's the good news.

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

however, its acts are an authoritative, void and 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 that power from the state. how is he saying that? let's look. what is your name, sir? gary. for this analogy we are going to pretend i just stolen gerry's car. do i have the authority to drive his car? know, i do not. do i have the authority to sell his car tax no, i do not. because my cover over his car wasn't legally delegated. it i is in a delegated power. that means any act by exercise

is an authoritative, void and is of no force. i do not have legal possession of his car. does he have to sue me to get his car back packs now. he simply provides the title to the local officials and they have to return the car to him as the rightful legal owner of the property. jefferson is explaining to us that when the federal government uses power outside of the constitution committees 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 proper legal publication. >> do the states have to sue the federal government to get their power back?

absolutely not. they simply have to provide the title deed to their power. what is the title, the constitution. you know the states 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 is like jerry suing me to get this car back showing up in court finding out that the judge and the jury are all my family members because they are suing the federal government in federal court. when the judges are appointed by the federal government. that is a stacked court. and given the pro version of the federal court today, did he have

any reasonable expectations that the court would sign against federal power in favor of the states and the constitution. it is the recourse of suing the federal government what happens when the federal government says nope, it's ours? then you are either reduced to the tributary slaves and an oligarchy of nine kings and queens or we are left with a rod of iron. why must the state check federal power? because it is the peaceful, rightful remedy and it is their

duty to do so. in 1799, experiencing similar circumstances of today, the federal government coming out of the spots in the states trying to enforce the constitutional contract and keeping them in the defined box. in this period of time, we have the legislators and the state of virginia getting i in the generl 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 your 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

your state and local government is as peaceful peaceful as skan 1799 declared to be the guardian of the state sovereignty. why must they guard the state sovereignty? because they have taken a solemn oath i do support and defend the constitution of the united states. because remember, we previously established but it's the states are not sovereign and independent they cannot make a legally binding contract, and if they cannot make a legally binding contract, and the constitution is dissolved, and the union does not exist. there is no republic. it is the obligation of the state and local governments under their oath 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 from the government, any dollar, 1 dollar to your state and local governments and their sovereignty because who pays the piper dictates the tune. then the states and local governments operate to the federal government in order to keep the funding if they think they cannot even survive without that federal money. the creation dictating over the creator. that's an aberration. how do we see the federal encroachments? they say they may come to you closed with the pretext of necessity.

because we must have national healthcare. of course we must have national healthcare. if we don't, we are all going to die. i have bad news for you, we are all going to die. [laughter] but when the federal government is funding healthcare, the only thing that will be established through national healthcare is the federal government will decide when, where and how you die. not only in the pretext of necessity that they will be disguised by the argument of expediency because the have to pass the bill so we can read the bill. sound familiar? okay. there is nothing new under the sun. human nature never changes. and at the same tools of government, the same reactions of people exist in 1799 as existed today. and those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat its

mistakes. one of the consequences of the federal encroachment they said they will expose us to established precedent of all the consequences of who served 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 bites your head off. that's why we put them in the few and defined box. what must the state do? the father of the constitution tells us what the state must do. in the case of the delivered, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted, who? that states have the right to

enter those. matheson said the states have a right to step in between the federal government exercise of power to defend the rights and liberties of the people. why do they have the right to do that? because the password is reserved and they had the right to keep the federal government off the power because it has been reserved to them. notice madison not only says they have a right, but they are to enter the post. can we all agree that the duty is greater than a right >> we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights and that is just to secure the rights to governments are instituted to a arriving at their power from consensus of

the governed. there is only one reason the government exists. there is only one reason the authority of the people created the free and independent states and was to secure our rights. and if the states are not stepping between the federal government and to its few and defined powers, then they will accomplish the single purpose for existence. and that's when they have the duty. how does the state interpose? thomas jefferson explains the process of interpretation. when the several states that formed the constitution were being sovereign and independent entity unquestionable right why, because they are the creators of the contract. they are the parties of the contract. 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 the reserve powers to protect the reserved powers. a sovereign state is not the rejection of the government and commission of the violence against government officials. the nullification is not a state refusing to comply with all federal governments. 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. that is what nullification is.

now, if we are going to be a little bit more apt about our analogy with the car, let's just assume now that gary has gone on vacation for three weeks to the bahamas. what he's been in a coma for the last 150 years. the day gary goes on vacation, i steal his car. he doesn't know his car is stolen. stolen. he's living it up in the bahamas. but for three solid weeks, i drive around in his car. everybody that's easy drive his car assumes i have the legal authority to do so because nobody is objecting. kerry comes home from vacation and realizes that stolen his car. 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 government has been exercisin exercising civilr within your state for the last 100 years does not change that stolen authority into a legal authority. it is still stolen and unlawful. now there are people who assert the nullification is not a rightful remedy. and what they are saying is the 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 and circuit court to announce the constitution.

i am sorry, we announced that in 1789. but is this a proper interpretation of the authority of the supreme court? ten of the supreme court determine its own authority? because you see that's what they've done. the constitutions have not delegated the ultimate definitive authority in the constitution to the court. if a power they secure for themselves through a series of their own opinions. would you like to live in that kind of universe where you could just bite your own power? look at what madison says in 1800. if the positions of the judiciary be raised about the sovereign parties to the constitution, who arconstitutioe sovereign parties of the constitution? so let's say it like that.

if the positions of the judiciary be raised about the authority of the states, dangerous powers not delegated may not only be executed by other departments, but the judicial department also may exercise or sanctioned dangerous powers not granted by the constitution. potentially, the ultimate right of the parties to the constitution who are the ultimate right of the state to suggest whether the compact has been violated must extend to the violations by one delegated authority as well as by and another can of the judiciary and as was th well as the executiver legislative. madison is reminding us of some very important facts. number one, the state created institution. number two, the states created the federal government. when the states created the federal government, they created

three branches of federal government. the legislative, executive and the judiciary. that means even the judiciary committee power that the judiciary exercises his power that has been delegated by the states which means the states are the higher power and the federal government is the judiciary to the supreme court is the lower power. and it's the supreme court being part of the whole team defined the power of the whole then what is the limit to the power? it is limited only by its file. they will try to assert to 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. one of the examples we will give you is this what madison is speaking to the house of representatives during the ratification of the bill of rights. he's trying to assert it will be safely inserted into the constitution because the court will be in a unique position to guard the right. there was an argument that if we put in the constitution and bill of rights to the federal for thl government would use that against us. someone in government was to usurp the right and with a lid should be created than to regulate the right.

that is not on the list and so we must have wanted the federal government to regulate it otherwise we would have put it on the list of rights. if it is on the list of rights, how do we know what it is? we will give you a favor and defined that h these for you soo not abridge upon your right. madison said we can have a bill of rights and they will not abuse those rights and powers will not abuse the rights because the judiciary will go up against every cover in the legislative or executive. did you see the states and at least? not. see the check in the judiciary is a check oas a check on the le and the executive, not on the power of the state.

that madison doesn't end here because the next statement establishes what we have already established. besides the security of the court limiting the executive and legislative branches, there's a great probability that they will be enforced because the state legislators will watch the operations in the government. why will the state legislators we closely watching the obligations of the federal government? because they have a duty to preserve the power. the state legislators will be able to resist with more every assumption of power than any other power on earth could do. and the greatest opponent to the federal government is to be the

guardians of the people's liberty. they are supposed to be the greatest opponents to the federal government, not their best friends, coworkers and on the same table. it is their duty to limit the federal power to the few and defined so that we can have our liberty guarded. look at the jefferson says in 1812. the body like gravity acting with an alarmed advance step-by-step handholding is engulfed in that precedent of the court writing their own power and then compounding.

the government will become as oppressive as the government for which we separated because we will be functioning as an oligarchy of kings and queens and not as a constitutional public. i just want to ask this question. why should we have this in the court how can we get in their history? this is the supreme court said dred scott cannot. this wasn't the constitution that declared him to be property, it was the supreme court interpreting the constitution to be property and not people.

what about the supreme court said yes, it's okay to detain japanese-americans, men, women and children because it is necessary for us to feel safe? does this sound like a guardian of your liberty? though, it sounds like a guardian of federal power into that is why they were never delegated this authority. does the supremacy clause prohibit the rightful remedy because they would save the supremacy clause says the federal law trumps state law. is that what it really says? how about we listen to alexander hamilton anhamilton institute fe court justice would federal court judge. hamilton says no legislative country to the constitution can be valid.

that's exactly what they say by the way. let's look at it. the supremacy clause, article six, section two declares this constitution and the law in the united states shall be made in pursuing third of him shall be the supreme law of the land. the constitution is the supreme law of the land and nothing else has to happen. it is the constitution therefore it is supreme. however, the law is created by congress in may i also said that the regulations in the agencies they are only the supreme law of the land when they are made in person and to the constitution. not every law is supreme. only those that fit under the constitution. you can't have the federal law and constitution on = because all it takes is one law that supersedes the constitution and

if the constitution is not supreme where does the congress get their authority? themselves. hamilton said no legislative act therefore can be valid. you know what he's telling us that the federal government is creating a law that they are not consistent with the constitution, they are no law at all. is it constitutional someone will try to tell you nullification is not in the constitution. you can look for that word all day and you will never find it and therefore it is

unconstitutional. let's look for the constitution? the tenth amendment, the power is not delegated to the states and are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. but i ask you something. if the nullification is not in the constitution, what does that tell us? it is not a power that is delegated. and if it isn't a power that is delegated, then it was? its reserved to the state. so this establishes the notificatiothatnotification is d to the state and it is their duty to do so. what does the supreme court say today about the nullification? you all know this guy a justice roberts.

your friends won't talk about this in this opinion and you won't see it in the medi in the. this is justice roberts majority opinion and response of the affordable care act decision. i will read to you what he says. he says, quote, we look to the states to defend our prerogative by adopting a simple expedient of not yielding when they do not want to embrace federal policies as their own. that is the chief justice in the majority opinion telling the states you need to nullify. then every doubt in their mind he says the state are separate but independent entity have to act like it.

isn't it time we start acting like it? how can you dispute that? someone will try to say they cannot nullify the federal law. how will we know what is lawful and it's not if we complied on whatever and however they choose they don't like the law, so they will not follow it. there would be anarchy throughout the country. nobody would know what is and what is not. here is the problem. what controls the federal government, the states. why? because all of the qualification is the states enforcing the

supreme court of the land from the federal government is acting unlawfully. they don't have to disregard any federal law that they have a duty to disregard federal law that is not constitutionally established. the have to understand the states have a duty to limit its creation because here's the consequence. if it isn't defined by the constitution, then why do we have one, what is the purpose of the constitution if the federal government can make whatever it wants clacks if the federal government isn't limited in its power by the constitution, then 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 till its creation q. can we do what we've delegated you to do and anything beyond that is no way and avoid a. remember what jefferson said when all government's domestic and foreign chile drawn that the whole 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 is supposed tthat issupposed to bee other governments? to states over the federal government. he then goes on to say it's the states declaring that if the

states work with apathy to the gulf. then the states were simply declaring that they are not states they are colonies and we are not free, we are subjects. then i ask you why do we have states, why do we need state government if that is the way they will operate if they want to act like colonies then why do we have them at all?

in the meantime we need local officials standing in defense of the people saying until we have legislation, we will not comply because you have no authority over these matters. they are reserved into your power is small and avoid. states have a rightful remedy. it's not an interpretation. it's not a new idea. it was established by the nature of the constitution being the contract. it remains because the states are separate and independent and it is their duty because we created them to protect the

rights and liberties. and that is what we the people must strive for. [applause] if you enjoyed this presentation there is a book on the back table. how many of you liked the slides and the quotes? this book teaches you not just what i talked tonight about the constitutional lessons on the right to keep and bear arms and to be secure, it has an article on nullification specifically and in this book every quote and

documents cited, i give you my original source in the back of the buck and all of my research. why? because i believe that we have to stop believing what people say simply because they hold a microphone. they don't stand on stage, they are on the news o where they cal themselves professor or job. >> we need to start questioning in finding the original source to all truths so that we can be the defenders of our liberty. i don't want you to believe a word i told you. i want you to know it to be true. i'm giving you all my research so you can test me out because i'm confident in the conclusions and if you test the venue will be the expert and then we will have a boldness to stand between

the legislators and say you must defend the liberty and we must comply. [applause] >> here is our contact information. here's all those things in case you need to write them down. we are going to do a question and answer session. we want to make sure we have the opportunity to do questions and answers but this is what i want us to know there are rules. number one comic you must come up to the front and speak into the microphone. number two, do not take the microphone off the stand. number three, you must have a

question and get to your question quickly. most of you know me and i am a rather bold spoken person and i'm not afraid to say i'm sorry, where is your question so if you want to debate me after the question and answer session then you can schedule a whole new event and we can talk about your particular subject to civil to make sure we get to the questions quickly and so we can get as many answers as possible in this moment it appeared co. 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 is i'm not running for office, so i don't need you to think i know everything about everything.

we 15 minutes of questions and answers and we need you to come up in th and line up at the mi microphone. how can we do this effectively reaching representatives, what do we do? >> that is a good question and i'd like to answer it like all of those. samuel adams said they will

surrender and be easily subdued when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. on the contrary when people become ignorant and debauched and their manners, they will sink underneath their own weight without the invaders. how would you become an effective champion for liberty and rights and limited government. you must know this so that you can be upset when that happens. and you must get educated so that you can educate your commissioners, your sheriff come in your state government.

we must be vigilant of our rights. i want to give the audience a pop quiz. do not answer out loud and do not cheat with your smartphone or tablet or pocket constitution. everyone agreed to those terms? there are five liberties and the amendment. to your self, name all five. >> since we are here in florida we have a supreme court justice who took a poll and found of 2% of the people could name all

five but here's my question to you. if you do not know what your rights are how do you know they are not already gone and that is why education is always the first step. >> do you think we should have an amendment that would limit the terms of explaining the supreme court or either have a reaffirming period like we do in florida? >> did everybody here the question, do we have term limits for supreme court judges? it's for good behavior. justices. that's something we need to change. they have appointments on good behavior.

do we know what that means, we are supposed to be wanting the behavior of our justices the way we monitor kindergarten class. and the minute a judge behaves badly, he is supposed to be removed. there is no votes necessary. there is no time limit. i mean, seriously if we identify a judge acting and bad behavior and he has a term limit of 12 years, and we have to wait more for him to go away? that might be what happens. then we would have ten years of guaranteed that behavior. the problem does not exist in the limits of the judicial appointments. the problem exists in a useless congress that refuses to engage

in the necessary check and balance. how many of you listen to my radio show? i've been talking a lot about judicial abuse. do you know we have supreme court justices right now that own the hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock in companies they rarely year before them in the courtroom? they are party to the discussions in the courtroom. the supreme court justice who was the 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 conflict of interest.

you have justice ginsburg that publicly came out against the law and then didn't re- queues when the supreme court came before. before. justice ginsburg saturday for the entire world in an interview with a reporter and said they should not use the constitution as a model because it is not reputable. it was written by a bunch of racist misogynistic man and couldn't be used as a model today. our supreme court justice has taken oath that they would support and defend the constitution of the united states without hesitation or mental reservation. with justice ginsberg did with that behavior. we have justices in the circuit court in oregon that refuse to

allow defendants to read the first amendment because the constitution is not relevant in the courtroom. that is bad behavior. >> so, we need to exercise the authorities that we have and the only way that will happen is to demand that will happen. >> are you aware of the confederacy oconfederacy of stat started? >> i'm not aware. >> it is a step towards what you were talking about. >> i cannot speak on that. i'm not familiar with it. >> helhell do we apply the principle of state sovereignty to the issue of immigration? >> that is a good question. we have to first identify what

is the delegated authority over the immigration? they are empowered to create congress. congress is empowered to create a uniform rule. the presidents obligation is to 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's 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 a uniform rule of naturalization which means that as an immigrant it does not follow those rules or cannot comply with those then that immigrant is illegal. and as the state, agreeing to the terms of the contract, the state has an obligation to abide by the terms of the contract and that is my sanctuary city blocks lawful multiplication. sanctuary cities are mollifying the wall that has been constitutionally created under the proper delegated authority. of those states that harbor the cities are actually violating contractual agreement.

the refugee status is not a uniform rule and a pathway to naturalization. therefore, refugee status is an established delegation of the persons residency. that's why the state and the governor's have the authority to refuse to accept refugees because the power of the refugee status is an undiluted authority and therefore it is no way to avoid. not only do they have the

authority to refuse refugees, but when the federal government is exercising power, what do 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 would create an interstate compact. it would reassert the states authority to refuse refugees in their borders. senate bill 512 in texas. florida can sign into this. this interstate compact isn't superseding the federal authority. it isn't taking the power from the federal government. the interstate compact is ensuring that the state is in

compliance with proper federal law and that is one of the remedies we could have a serving our authority. you see, we have an obligation. if i could add one more point. do you know every state that offers in-state tuition is violating florida law, it is unlawful according to the uniform rule of naturalization it is unlawful to hire or house and illegal alien subject depending on the terms to up to ten years in prison for every single violation.

what does that say about the state legislators who are knowingly and willfully violating a federal law that show the subject them to ten years in prison for each violation and what does that say when we are prosecuting individuals for violating that crime, violating those laws that we allow the representatives to violate the law. to tag along with my first question and thank you for the answer we have the authority because we are in a compact. but how can jacksonville, gainesville and tampa welcomed the cities to the refugees without the general public knowing about it how can a city

council. i understand what you're saying we have to get educated. we need to say what is the path to follow in order to get this under control. how many of you think those in the state and local government allows these threats to come to america, to come into your community denying the federal law, denying the responsibility and th a duty to protect the ris

and liberty. how many people think that there are people in state and local government because they do not know any better? how many of you think there are people in state and local government who are doing this because they have sacrificed principle at the altar of pragmatism. how many think they are greedy because they want money and power over its? what is the difference of the motivation? james otis junior one of the founders that fought for our liberty says i have come to despise those whose guilt, malice or folly is made then my so. guilt sacrificing principle on the altar. malice, greed, power, folly, it

turns. we have to become dedicated to the principles that will allow us to look at these county commissioners. look at them and say you are my fellow regardless of your motivation. which means you cannot continue to support them in the reelection regardless of the political party politics. ask >> that's why it is liberty first, the principle over party and truth over personality because governments will do a lot of things when we are not looking.

but they will never do what we want them to do unless we make them do it. and if we continually reaffirm the guilt, malice and folly through the reelection. we are giving them our consent and permission to be immoral and destroy the liberties. the second question would be the offices. in the florida constitution and the statute there two different oafoafs.

>> i will speak to you from a federal perspective. because each and every state is different.

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 farmers for patent infringement because their seeds were blowing onto the farmers property and they were this dealing patented property.

what's even worse is that congress has created regulations that protect monsanto from lawsuits from tech pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits 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 states would be to regulate business. the problem is the creation of

public-private association. that's when you have the government funding private industry because they deemed it to be a matter of public endorsement, like an airport. airports are privately on. your airlines are privately-owned. they get prophets yet your tax dollars are used to build them. do you see any prophet from them? the idea is that tax revenue pays that off but when the government can partner up than they are picking winners and losers again. and regulation of business doesn't stop many crimes. it doesn't prevent any real harm to the people either. let me give you an example. we are missionaries to hating, okay? and when one of our trips to haiti we stayed with the family

in their home and i love to bake and so did the ladies of the house. in haiti they make these things called pat tae. the spanish call them empanadas. they are pastries stuffed with with -- and fries. i was teaching my host is how to make mango cream cheese pat tae because they have lots of mango and we were making this stuff and frying it with powdered sugar on it. they had never had anything like it and they thought it was amazing. and she said this to me. she said, madam she said let's go to the market and get a bunch of cream cheese, a bunch of mango and all the things we need to make these things. we will make a huge batch of them and we will go to the market and sell them. the haitian people will love them. we will never be able to make enough to last the whole day and i went, i said you know if i had

that idea in america and i made up my mango cream cheese pat tae 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 mango cream cheese pat tae to the public i must get up permit from the government to sell them publicly. then i must also get a permit to make them in my home. then i must pay the federal government or the privilege of them inspecting my home to make sure that i'm creating the mango pat tae in a way that is compliant with the government's rules and then as i put up my stand and i sell my mango pat tae i will have to put aside a portion of the sweat of my row the product of my labor to pay the government for the trip which of selling what i have created.

and she said wow. [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 can go to the street corner and sell it to your neighbors. there is nobody dying for mad cow disease in haiti. they have these yearly festivals where the people have these big feast 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 to meet you walk to the end of your street, you hang the hock up a cow off of 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 regulations

do not and 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 it? we don't need two. what we need to do is to 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 will regulate them instead. has medical malpractice and it?

has corporate pollution and it? has corporate abuse of employees and it? no, because laws tilts -- to regulations but what they do do is make politicians and lobbyists -- so to answer your question it's back again to education. how do you limit your government? you understand that you can't have liberty if he 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. what was the last one? [applause] this will be our last question today.

what was the second question because i didn't get it. i forgot it. >> i was speaking more of the government corporations, state of florida is a corporation. >> i don't get into that sort of thing. that's outside of my wheelhouse. that's outside the text and the federal constitution. >> all right, thank you. [applause]