Byron Dale
  • Male
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • United States
Share

Byron Dale's Friends

  • David Paul Pich
  • Chuck Reames
  • Eric Knutson
  • Jon Roland
  • Terry Trussell
  • netty wisbaum
  • Russ Millette
  • Michael (Mick) Webster
  • Gary Porter
  • Richard Michael
  • Keith Broaders

Gifts Received

Gift

Byron Dale has not received any gifts yet

Give a Gift

 

Byron Dale's Page

AMENDMENTS to the Constitution

MARK LEVIN'S "LIBERTY" AMENDMENTS: LEGALIZING TYRANNY

By Publius Huldah

 For 100 years, the federal government has usurped powers not delegated to it in our Constitution.

What should we do about it? Should we reclaim our existing Constitution and put an end to the usurpations?

Or should we “modernize” the Constitution by delegating to the federal government the powers it has usurped – so as to legalize what is now unconstitutional?

Mark Levin begins “The Liberty Amendments” by saying he doesn’t believe the Constitution requires “modernization through amendments”. But he then proposes a series of amendments, six of which modernize our Constitution to delegate to the federal government most of the powers it has usurped during the last 100 years.

And each of his six amendments does the opposite of what its title promises .I’ll show you.[1]

Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy” [p 99-100 of his book]

George Washington’s cabinet had four members: Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General. Those functions are authorized by our Constitution.[2]

But today there are numerous agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal government. Where is the constitutional authority? What Article, Section, and Clause authorizes the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Labor, Transportation, HHS, HUD, DHS, EPA, SBA, etc., etc., etc.?

There is no constitutional authority! Accordingly, all these agencies are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated in our Constitution.

Well then, a person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand that these agencies be closed and their functions returned to the States and The People, right?

But Mark Levin doesn’t do this. Section1 of his amendment legalizes all these agencies. It says:

“All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

As long as Congress periodically “reauthorizes” the agencies– they remain. Levin’s amendment thus changes the constitutional standard for whether an executive agency lawfully exists from whether it carries out an enumerated power [as in Washington’s Cabinet] to whatever the President wants and Congress agrees to. Do you see?

Now look at Section 2 of Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy.” It says:

“All Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $100 million, as determined jointly by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, shall be submitted to a permanent Joint Committee of Congress, hereafter the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee, for review and approval prior to their implementation.”

Article I, §1, of our Constitution says only Congress may make laws.[3] But since Woodrow Wilson, executive agencies in the federal government have been churning out regulations which govern all aspects of our lives. These comprise the now gigantic Code of Federal Regulations.

All these regulations are unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1![4]

Well then, one would expect that a person who wanted to “limit the federal bureaucracy” would demand the repeal of existing regulation and an end to all future rulemaking, right?

Not Levin! Section 2 of his amendment legalizes all existing regulations and the rule making process. Levin’s “fix” is merely to form a congressional committee to review certain regulations before they are imposed on the American People.

And so, federal executive agencies will continue to churn out millions of pages of regulations – but now, they will be constitutional because Levin’s amendment makes it all lawful.

Do you see? Levin’s amendment legalizes the status quo and does the opposite of what he claims.

Levin’s amendment “to limit federal spending”(p 73 -74)

Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. If you go through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress or the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money. That is how our Framers controlled federal spending. It is the enumerated powers which limit spending – not the amount of revenue the federal government generates or the size of the GDP. Do you see?

The reason we have a crushing debt is because for 100 years, the federal government has ignored the limits –already set forth in the Constitution - on its spending.

Well then, a person who wanted to “limit federal spending” would demand that Congress begin to downsize the federal government and restrict spending to the enumerated powers, right?

But Levin doesn’t do this. Section 1 of his amendment legalizes all the spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers. It says:

“Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.”

Levin’s amendment thus legalizes the unconstitutional status quo where the President and Congress adopt a “budget” and spend money on whatever they put in the budget! Levin would permit Congress and the President to lawfully spend money on whatever they want – spending which is now unlawful because our Constitution doesn’t authorize it.

Furthermore, Levin’s amendment does nothing to control federal spending. While Sections 3 & 4 of his amendment pretend to limit spending to revenues or to a percentage of the GDP; Sections6 & 7 permit Congress to suspend the spending limit and continue to raise the national debt.[5]

Levin’s amendment “to limit federal taxing” (p 75)

Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to levy taxes so that Congress and the President will have the funds to spend on whatever they want.

Congress may lawfully levy taxes only to raise the funds to carry out the enumerated powers. Article I, §8, clauses 1 & 2 say:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States …” [and] “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”

Immediately after clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers we delegated to Congress for the Country at Large.[6]

Add to this short list of enumerated powers, the “housekeeping powers” itemized elsewhere in the Constitution (e.g., the census); the salaries authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, next to last clause; Art. III, §1, cl. 1, and others on the civil list; and you see the purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, and spend money, for the Country at Large.[7]

So! Congress should not be levying taxes except to generate revenue for its constitutional functions. If Congress restricted its spending to those few powers delegated in the Constitution, the federal government would need very little money from us.

One would expect that a person who wants to“limit federal taxation” would demand that the federal government stop taxing to raise money to spend on unconstitutional purposes, right?

 

Not Levin! While his amendment limits the federal income tax to 15% of income – it institutionalizes the present practice where Congress lays & collects taxes for any purposes whatsoever.[8]

Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” (p 137)

The federal government has no lawful authority to own land for any purpose other than those enumerated in the Constitution: Article I, §8, next to last clause, permits the federal government to own the District of Columbia [which was not to exceed “ten Miles square”], and Places purchased with the Consent of the State legislatures for the erection of forts, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings (e.g., federal courthouses, post offices) to carry out the enumerated powers.

The federal government has no lawful authority to own national parks, grazing areas, forests, and such.[9]

And the federal government has no lawful authority to restrict peoples’ use of their own land. Now here in our Constitution did we delegate that power to the federal government! Accordingly, all federal laws and regulations (EPA, etc.) which pretend to restrict an owner’s use of his land are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.

Furthermore, the States’ and local governments’ powers of eminent domain and other “takings” of private land are addressed in their own State Constitutions and laws. This is NOT a federal issue!

But Levin’s amendment “to protect private property” changes all of the above. It says:

“When any governmental entity acts not to secure a private property right against actions that injure property owners, but to take property for a public use from a property owner by actual seizure or through regulation, which taking results in a market value reduction of the property, interference with the use of the property, or a financial loss to the property owner exceeding $10,000, the government shall compensate fully said property owner for such losses.”

Levin’s amendment:

Changes the constitutional standard for federal ownership of lands from carrying out an enumerated power to whatever someone in the federal government deems a “public use” [which can be anything];

Legalizes what are now unconstitutional holdings of lands by the federal government – such as grazing lands;

Legalizes “takings” by regulation – restrictions via regulations on the use of private lands - by all levels of government; Takes from the States and The People their retained powers over eminent domain and regulatory takings, and makes it a federal issue under the control of the federal government;[10] and provides that as long as a taking does not reduce the value of the property by more than $10,000, the governments don’t have to pay the property owner one red cent. So! If your local or State or federal government takes some of your land, or restrict its use by regulation, Levin’s amendment requires compensation to be paid if the “taking” exceeds $10,000. If the government decides that your loss is less than $10,000, you eat the loss. The amendment legalizes government theft of private property.

Levin’s amendment “to protect the vote” (p 183-184)

Before our Constitution was ratified, the States qualified & registered voters. Qualifications were set forth in their State Constitutions, and requirements differed from State to State. This power was expressly retained by the States with Art. I, §2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution.[11]

The four voting amendments reduced this retained power of the States, and delegated to the federal government power to stop States from denying suffrage to citizens on account of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay a tax (24th Amendment), or age for citizens eighteen years of age or older (26th Amendment).

Except as restricted by these four amendments, the States retain their pre-existing power to set qualifications for registering citizens to vote, as long as they do not deny it on account of race, sex, failure to pay a tax, or age for those 18 years or more. States remain free to deny registration on other grounds – such as conviction of a felony or illiteracy. And of course, States retained power to restrict voting to citizens!

But the retained powers of the States to set voter qualifications for registration were diminished far beyond the scope of the amendments, due to usurpations by the federal government, and because the States forgot that they retained at Art. I, §2, cl. 1 most of their original power to qualify & register voters.

In Arizona’s Proposition 200: What The Constitution Really Says About Voter Qualifications & Exposing The “Elections Clause” Argument, I show how the federal government infringed upon the States’ retained powers over voter qualifications & registration; and how the two judges in that case wrongly ruled that Arizona could not require applicants for registration to provide proof of citizenship!

So! What should we do about non-citizens voting? Here is a novel idea: The States should man up and reclaim their powers retained by Art. I, §2, cl. 1; tell Eric Holder to take a hike; require all currently registered voters to provide proof of citizenship; and refuse to register new voters unless they provide proof of citizenship. Enforce the Constitution we have!

But Section 1 of Levin’s amendment “to protect the vote” says:

“Citizens in every state, territory, and the District of Columbia shall produce valid photographic identification documents demonstrating evidence of their citizenship, issued by the state government for the state in which the voter resides, as a requirement for registering to vote and voting in any primary or general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress.”

Levin’s amendment (it has 5 Sections) rewards the federal government for unlawfully forbidding States from requiring applicants to prove they are citizens, by transferring more power over voter qualifications & registration to the federal government.[10]

But Levin’s amendment does even more harm than vesting in the federal government a power it already usurped - it ushers in a national ID card. Who thinks the feds won’t dictate the contents of the card and keep copies? [Do you really think a national ID card is a great idea?]

To add insult to injury, Levin’s amendment doesn’t even prohibit non-citizens from voting – it merely requires citizens to get an ID card before they can register to vote. Non-citizens are not required to get ID cards. The supreme Court (which will now lawfully have judicial power over this issue) will decide whether aliens can vote.

Levin’s amendment “to promote free enterprise” (p 117)

In Federalist No. 22 (4th para) and Federalist No. 42 (11th&12th paras), Hamilton & Madison explain the original intent of the “interstate commerce” clause: It is to prohibit States from imposing tolls &tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. Until the mid-1930’s, this was widely understood. Here is a full proof of the original intent of that clause and the story of how the supreme Court usurped power over interstate commerce.

The original intent of that clause is still the supreme Law of the Land![12] So the States must man up and enforce that original intent. They must ignore - nullify - all pretended federal laws, regulations, and judicial opinions which are contrary to that original intent.

Levin’s amendment “to promote free enterprise” says:

“SECTION 1: Congress’ power to regulate Commerce is not a plenary grant of power to the federal government to regulate and control economic activity but a specific grant of power limited to preventing states from impeding commerce and trade between and among the several states.”

“SECTION 2: Congress’s power to regulate Commerce does not extend to activity within a state, whether or not it affects interstate commerce; nor does it extend to compelling an individual or entity to participate in commerce or trade.”

Section 1 broadens the powers of the federal government from prohibiting States from imposing tolls &tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling, to prohibiting the States from doing anything which “impedes” commerce and trade between and among the States.

Many things can be said to “impede” commerce and trade. And who will decide what “impedes” and what doesn’t “impede”? Five judges on the supreme Court.

Section 2 mentions two instances where Congress’ power to regulate Commerce does not extend. This is dangerous because of the legal maxim, Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other).

Accordingly, Congress’ power to regulate commerce would extend to other instances. Which ones? We don’t know - the supreme Court will decide – on a case by case basis.

Conclusion

Levin’s amendments legalize - make constitutional - the very abuses they purport to correct, nullify the natural rights of the people, and fundamentally change the constitutional design.

Even though our Constitution is not being enforced, it still declares this federal government lawless! The true rule of law is still on our side, but not for much longer if we foolishly allow our Constitution to be re-written.

 

Latest Activity

Jon Roland and Byron Dale are now friends
Jul 11
Byron Dale and David Paul Pich are now friends
Mar 19
Byron Dale added a page to the group Friends of Byron Dale
Mar 18
Byron Dale joined Keith Broaders's group
Mar 18
Byron Dale commented on Keith Broaders's blog post What is a Dollar?
"Then need to predict protect and preserve our economy from being in perpetual debt, and our freedom from the bankers own money system is to have the government create the money and spend it into circulation for the benefit of everyone and not just…"
Mar 12
Byron Dale commented on Keith Broaders's blog post What is a Dollar?
"Hi Chuck thanks for your reply. I found it interesting.  However, you did not cite any laws just court opinions.  As I understand it under our Constitution only legislators can legislate law not the court system. They can only give you…"
Mar 12
Byron Dale and Chuck Reames are now friends
Mar 12
Byron Dale commented on Keith Broaders's blog post What is a Dollar?
"The question was, what is a dollar?  The 1792 coinage act dates dollars or units - each to be the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain 371 grains and 4/16 parts of a grain of pure,  or 416 grains of…"
Mar 11
Byron Dale posted a status
"How our money has been switch from wealth"
Feb 25
Burkeley Cameron left a comment for Byron Dale
"Sounds great! I'll reach out to you next week. I think Keith gave me your contact info, but could you forward it to me when you get a moment? Liberty.alliance.command@gmail.com Burkeley"
Mar 24, 2016
Byron Dale left a comment for Burkeley Cameron
"Burkekey  I would like to work with you to create a video about money as wealth. Byron Dale"
Mar 23, 2016
Byron Dale posted a status
Apr 25, 2015
Byron Dale added a discussion to the group Hennepin County, MN
Thumbnail

greeting

Hi this Byron Dale who else is  on this?See More
Apr 7, 2015
Byron Dale joined Keith Broaders's group
Apr 7, 2015
Byron Dale left a comment for Jon Roland
"Jon you placed a site where one could go and read the bill that Congress pasted to grant statehood to Nev. would you be kind enough to send that site to me at mtalks23@msn.con Thanking you in advance Byron Dale"
Apr 26, 2014
Byron Dale updated their profile
Apr 19, 2014

Byron Dale's Blog

Debt and interest

Posted on March 16, 2014 at 10:46am 5 Comments

According to the Grandfather Economic Report found at http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm. The Grandfather Economic Report has been endorsed by both Gerald P. Dwyer VP of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and Dr. Milton Friedman. Rob Grunnewald of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has confirmed that the figures of this chart seem…

Continue

Debt and interest

Posted on March 16, 2014 at 10:29am 0 Comments

Comment Wall (6 comments)

You need to be a member of Constitution Club to add comments!

Join Constitution Club

At 7:36am on March 24, 2016, Burkeley Cameron said…
Sounds great! I'll reach out to you next week.
I think Keith gave me your contact info, but could you forward it to me when you get a moment? Liberty.alliance.command@gmail.com

Burkeley
At 1:08pm on August 30, 2013, Keith Broaders said…

The Friends of Liberty Radio is scheduled for tomorrow at 11:00 Central Time. The call in number is 1 (347) 884-9499 the website address for peple that wish to listen online is www.blogtalkradio.com/friendsofliberty

I am thankful to you for accepting the invitation to be my guest.

Keith Broaders

At 6:27pm on August 23, 2013, Keith Broaders said…
At 7:51pm on August 19, 2013, stupidamerkin said…

Dear Mr. Dale: I had a chance to watch a little of your video concerning the fraud, (Federal Reserve Note Dollar) and gold standard and felt moved to respond on just a few points. Please correct me if I am wrong, I am not beyond constructive criticism, but we have been led to believe that we have the debt, the banksters have the assets.

The truth is that it is not our debt to begin with. We the people never created the debt. The criminals, traitors and banksters created it. All we need to do is follow Iceland's example and start cleaning house.

The agenda was to take this country down from the start and if we think that we ever really won the Revolutionary War, we better examine our history a little closer.

Have you ever heard of, http://www.mtnhour.com 

Thank you for sharing your wisdom and knowledge.

SA 

At 12:37pm on August 8, 2013, Keith Broaders said…

Join your state and county group at
http://constitutionclub.ning.com/page/state-flags

At 7:53pm on August 6, 2013, Keith Broaders said…

Byron Dale Videos
Click Here

 
 
 

© 2017   Created by Keith Broaders.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service