Click Here to Make a One Time Donation
These 55 donors represent 1% of the 4,245 members of the Constitution Club
That have donated to the Constitution Club in 2017.
Paul Buccos, Charles McCarty, James Hines, David Perry, Milt Chandler, Rich Vara, Kirk Beck, Stewart Reeves,
Richard Schillinger, Olde Galatia Church, Sandra Pleasant, Thomas Koeher, Mark Warren, Jilene Burger, Joseph Gotshall,
Laura Dutton, Janelle Truax, Michael Thomas, Victor Pirie, Charles Cox, Robert Adams, Timothy Carson, Catherine Cardoni,
Patricia Badish, Thomas Mick, John DiLiberto, Darl Easton, Debra Ochsendorf. SBC Supply, David Zuniga, Robert Holtzxlaw,
Michael Cogan, David Rempel. Jose Jara, Richard Wilshire, Vincent Sawyer, Dennis Klein, Terry Petrey, Joe Cronin, Dan Robinson,
Ray Harney, Daryl Johnson, Ed Rangel, Colby Rey, Mark Kirby, William Gray, G. Tracy Bakewell, Julian Marquez,
Dean Williams, Daniel Pendergast, Henry Mayhew, Ray Bostard, William Keen, Erin Lea, Ralph Reins, Henry White
The states created the Union and before ratifying the Constitution they demanded a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution.
They wanted to be absolutely certain that the newly formed government to be the servant of the people and the states.
It was well understood that any power or authority not specifically granted to the National government was retained to the states and the people. Since the right of secession is not mention in the Constitution, it is one of the rights retained by the states.
The thirteen colonies seceded from the British Empire and set a precedence. When in the opinion of the people of a given state feel the National government has violated the terms of the Constitution they have a right to sever the connection.
In the pyramid of political power, God created man and was the supreme sovereign, Man created the states, and the states created the Union. The central government was the low man on the totem pole. The right of secession is like an insurance policy against governmental tyranny.
Personally, I am not in favor of states seceding from the Union, but I am in favor of strict enforcement of the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution delegated limited powers to the National government were few and well defined while the powers retained by the states were nearly limitless.
By accepting the notion that in the Constitution there are implied powers you give the government the authority to expand their powers beyond what was intended. The powers of the National government can only be changed thought the amendment process outlined in Article V.
Today the Constitution is amended every time an unconstitutional law is passed, an executive order is writing or whenever the Supreme Court misinterprets the Constitution. Any amendment proposed to the states for ratification must be approved by two thirds of the members of the House and Senate and must be ratified by three fourths of the states.
Making positive changes in the Constitution is nearly impossible because getting two thirds of the member of Congress to vote on an amendment that would strip them some of their power is highly unlikely. The first ten amendments limited the power of the government to abuse the rights of the people, but all of the subsequent amendments have expanded the power and control of the government over the people.
The right of secession gives the states the ability to hold the servant government accountable. Denying the states their sovereignty turns the servant into the master.
Just like a marriage contract that can be dissolved so can the contract between the states and their servant government. Secession is the last resort, we should and make every effort to preserve the Union and restore Constitutional Republic. We don't need to amend the Constitution, we simply need to obey it.
To Learn how we can restore the Constitution, we must first reclaim the control of the House of Representatives. Due to inadequate representation in the House our voices are not being heard. In order to regain control of the House we must reduce the size of the Congressional District and increase the number of representatives. AmericaAmerica! has the answer
By having only 435 representatives in the People's House, We the People are being represented by a group of millionaires who were spent an average of $1,600,000 to get elected which was donated to them by Wall Street Bankers and Corporations.
People like you and I can not run for Congress, those seats are reserved to the puppets of the financial elite. They don't represent us, they represent those at the top of the financial pyramid.
If we had a representative in the House for every 50,000 people, common people like you and I could afford to run for Congress. Instead of being represented by the puppets hired by the bankers we could be represented by men and women who love liberty more than money.
We need the new House to pass the Bring Congress Home Act which would shut down DC and send the Congressmen back to their home districts where we can supervise them and hold them accountable.
Call me at 951-260-7711 and let's talk about it.
Who do you agree with? Would you rather have 435 corrupt politicians representing the Wall Street Bankers and Corporations or 6,250 men and women representing the people?
If all of the new representatives were as corrupt as the ones we now have I would agree that adding more criminals to the pay roll would be like pouring kerosene on a fire.
If the 6,000 new representative were honest defenders of the Constitution the voice and will of the people would be heard loud and clear.
Bring Congress Home Act is the best I have seen yet....it needs to get in action. My problem is I am having trouble getting involved, as I am transient, homeless right now. Hard to do anything, as I don't live in the State I am registered in, and it will be some time before I reach my destination, which is Idaho...the plan anyway. Having trouble even just getting a Library Card right now. But I am all for this Bring Congress Home Act...definitely a good thing.
The quality of our representatives is far more important than the quantity of representatives.
The problem as I see it is, as to whether States have the right to secede, can a child lawfully abandon the parents. Since I believe that there are no independent, sovereign states and all are sub-corps of the federal govt., I can't see how they can divorce unless the Feds go along with it. That's not likely since all the States are co-sureties with the Federal govt. in bankruptcy. Does anyone think that the international banksters are going to give their blessing to one of their debtors abandoning ship? I think not.
We talk about government like its just sort of off track and needs a little tweaking to get things right. ITS NOT OUR GOVERNMENT! No amount of tweaking by Trump or all the patriot groups in America will make it our government. Our govt. has been at rest for a century and a half. We can't just say some magic words that will breath life back into it. We can't add more Representatives to their [international banksters] govt. and, bingo, expect it to act like our govt. under Original Jurisdiction.
I admire everyone's ambition to bring things back to a proper form of government but without a roundup of the criminals running this one, and more importantly, the criminals behind them [the Shadow Government], I don't know where this communication is going. I've heard for quite some time that there are international arrest warrants out for Soros but I don't see him getting arrested. From the looks of things in this country it looks like he is as viable as ever and creating a real firestorm here in the U.S.
The states were the parents and they created the central government. Your premise made the assumption that the states were created by the government of the United States.
My take on that is, initially the states created the central govt., but after the chaos of the Civil War, it was elements [powerful banking interests] in the federal govt. that forced the states to become States--federal sub-corps. The bankers wanted more than just the federal govt. on the hook for the second bankruptcy.
Did Lincoln save the Union by trashing the Constitution? Is the life, liberty and property of the people more important than the preservation of the Union. The purpose of the Union was to protect the God given rights of the people.