The Problem

By Louie E. Johnston Jr.

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” –Autobiography of Mark Twain.

Hearsay evidence is always declared worthless in our American courts, but soaked up like thirsty sponges and repeated by our citizens eager to prove themselves as smart, educated, informed.

If you do not personally read and study the vital American historical source documents, laws and landmark Supreme Court decisions that impact our way of life, but you swallow and polly parrot other people’s opinions, even though you have no idea where their information originated, repeating without verifying what you see or hear on television, radio, newspapers, Internet, the beauty shop or barber shop, kitchen tables or even schools and churches…then you are THE PROBLEM as Mark Twain (1835-1910) observed and defined so well long before modern media was invented.

Mark Twain lived in an era where newspapers were the only national information source, as radio was not a public news source until the 1920s. Twain sounded the alarm for the vital need for American citizens to be informed and self-educated by personal research from original sources, and stop listening and accepting unverified opinions.

I start here, because, if you are THE PROBLEM, as I was, nothing in this book will fix our broken America, unless readers realize they are THE PROBLEM and change to receive and repeat only personally verified information, even if it proves you have personally been wrong in your current beliefs and convictions. Political party talking points and agendas are not facts.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts’ embedded opinion is relying on informed citizens to guide States into legal action to Esse Quam Videri, or “To actually be, rather than appear to be” independent sovereign states, who “sometimes have to act like it” by “the simple expedient of not yielding to federal blandishments.” How many missed this because they did not read the opinion, choosing to buy the media version?

Roberts and our Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) know their place, which is to be legal referees and final authorities on every issue they choose to review, but very few citizens really know our personal place in our own government, which is truly the highest office in the land…citizen. Most tragically never take our place. We abandon it by apathy. We abdicate our personal duty as citizens while blasting SCOTUS from ignorance, expecting them to quick fix our issues as if we had no responsibility or authority except to whine. SCOTUS is sovereign, yet States are also sovereign…citizens are sovereign. Where are their boundaries?

Citizen duty in unity is the fabric of our nation…no shirkers, no shortcuts, or no freedom, no liberty. Spewing forth our grievances is our citizen duty, but so is being educated and informed.

You must read and verify information personally, the actual source documents, not Cliff’s Notes, CNN, Wickipedia, Google shortcut versions, or online blogs from official sounding websites like www.TenthAmendmentCenter.org to open the eyes and ears of your Judeo-Christian Patriots heart, to value truth, honor, virtue, far more than allegiance to political party, race, or selfish interests or agendas. Where exactly are these sovereign boundaries, if any?

Read the “contracts” personally that I discuss below to know them, their place, their boundaries, terms and conditions and become THE PROOF! It is vital, for the subject matter is a national fabric woven by our Founding Fathers in honor into simple, yet collectively complex systems of contracts, all with many moving parts, all deserving our citizens duty to understand and perform as caretakers, holding each in confidence and trust today and in the future. Only in performing our citizen duties responsibly, do we preserve them for our posterity.

Stop repeating, even advocating, rumors, lies, partial truths, gossip, hearsay, unverified information no matter how much you trust or believe sources you have relied on in the past.

If you want to stay the “same old same old” way, abdicating your personal civic duty to become and remain an educated, informed citizen, you are in the wrong book here, as our entire purpose is to be the agent of change to guide your transition from THE PROBLEM to THE PROOF!

The Proof
God Jehovah, The Holy Bible, U.S. Constitution, 10th Amendment, SCOTUS – Supreme Court of the United States, state sovereignty, nullification, interposition…citizen.

Can you present THE PROOF of these in America and their proper place in honorable relationships?

Can you personally present The Proof where U.S. Constitution meets state sovereignty head on?

Have you personally read a single law or Supreme Court decision to verify what you were told by “somebody pretty smart,” “saw on television,” or “read somewhere?”

Where DO you get information which becomes YOUR “beliefs” and “convictions,” specifically?

I find one of two camps…Truth seekers who self-educate by verified original source documents ONLY, who become THE PROOF because they can quickly point people to source documents they can read for themselves, without spin or agenda, or THE PROBLEM who “buy a lie,” choosing unverified opinions and outright lies of others rather than conduct personal research.

HE PROBLEM is in the mirror in America, as Mark Twain observed, even in his 1850 era, when citizens had little access to historical source documents, long before radio, television, Internet. One week reading today’s newspapers would be a lifetime of information in his day.

I wrote “THE Christian Nation Revolution, Regeneration” because an American president publicly declared “America is no longer a Christian nation.” I was outraged and “called out.”

I was outraged even more…because there was no outrage. Why was he not rebuked, with proof? Where were the 83 percent of all Americans who believe in God of The Holy Bible? Silent.

My outrage turned to personal shame as I realized I had shirked my personal duty as a citizen to research and obtain personal knowledge, “The Proof” that the President was wrong…or right.

I invested years researching actual historical documents to change myself from being THE PROBLEM to an expert, now THE PROOF! I read and listen to opinions from those I have vetted, but I only trust original source documents, and the wisdom God promises all who seek it.

Examining briefly your personal education status and process in these three subjects will speak volumes, revealing you are THE PROBLEM as Mark Twain defines, or THE PROOF!

For citizen duty, if you have not read and studied the Geneva Bible and U.S. Constitution, you probably have not read and studied the very few landmark Supreme Court decisions that determine the America our great-grandchildren will inherit, unless we clean up our current mess our generation allowed. “Too busy” is your choice to be THE PROBLEM!

Chief Justice John Roberts literally “called out” the States, embedded approval and instructions to legally resist federal tyranny in a landmark for state sovereignty, yet America did not read and study the vital decision personally, not even the lawyers, or the legislators that created the law being challenged. Justice Roberts issues landmark state sovereignty confirmation, yet the self-proclaimed conservative nation jumped him like a traitor worse than Benedict Arnold and for the absolute worst of reasons/excuses. State legislators in 28 States united to bring only two specific issues before SCOTUS when they could and should have presented dozens and did nothing whatsoever to act like a sovereign state, depending on a SCOTUS “easy quick fix.”

Later in this book I present my “State Interposition Laws” based on Justice Roberts’ embedded guide. The “State Interposition Act” is the foundation, the codified legal process the State will follow to legally resist the Federal Government in any interposition.

Of course it can be modified by each State, but interposition requires an honorable legal process be enacted and followed for every interposition act regarding a specific issue.

The first interposition act for a specific issue based on the foundation “State Interposition Act,” details the entire legal case on the first issue opposing the illegal federal government law we reject, known as Obamacare. Titled “State Interposition of Federal Affordable Care Act,” it contains all major elements deemed unacceptable, with detailed point by point proofs of unconstitutional or otherwise illegal reasons it cannot stand. It is the legal defense before any challenge is made, so a State can play defense if challenged, instead of chasing relief in expensive federal courts.

Killing Obamacare is priority one in preserving our State beliefs, convictions, values, duties and rights, while also shifting into reverse the illegal lunacy of our Federal Government.

Obamacare would bankrupt and destroy our quality of life in 28 States opposing it. It cannot stand. It is unconstitutional on many grounds ignored by the legal challenge to SCOTUS, who can only rule on specific challenges brought before them…they cannot be judge and prosecutor.

Please note I carefully document well over 26 major violations of law in my list of grievances against Obamacare. This is the honorable way States resist, by documented grievances detailed, proving each to be illegal, then enacted by state law.

Every grievance presented must fail SCOTUS review for our state law to fail. Only one grievance is needed to be sustained for our “State Interposition Law” opposing an issue to be sustained, as only one affirming ruling as “unconstitutional” by SCOTUS can strike that law for all 50 States, should the Court decide to do so. One proven unconstitutional allegation upholds “State Interposition Law” and can void the federal action entirely, ab initio (from the beginning).

Should the Federal Government engage a State who passed my “Interposition Laws,” they must prevail on all 26 illegal allegations in the Supreme Court of Justice Roberts, while a State only needs to prove one of 26 violations in defense, to prevail and kill Obamacare permanently.

If only the 28 States who sued in the Sebellius case had understood this principle, but they did not…choosing only two issues to challenge, not even the best two issues at that. Even so, they won one of two issues presented. Had they presented my 26-plus allegations, we would not have Obamacare.

My point is to “conservatives” who jumped Chief Justice Roberts like he was John Wilkes Booth, instead of looking in the mirror to see how suing over only two illegal allegations instead of 26-plus was more to blame by omitting overwhelming evidence on our side.

SCOTUS can only rule on the issues brought to the Court. The legal team who brought only two issues to court instead of doing their due diligence as I have, and loading the lawsuit with my 26 allegations instead of two…they failed to give SCOTUS the slam dunk case to make sure to win.

Even so, Justice Roberts’ opinion contains landmark precedent commentary around an organized compilation of prior SCOTUS decisions which formed an embedded precedent affirming state independence and sovereignty.
Read this book with an open heart as to whether you are The Problem, or The Proof! If you are The Problem, you will listen to and believe whatever is convenient and never know truth, because you will never vet or examine personally that which you see on television or Internet.

Hosea 4:6 is clear instruction from our God Jehovah in the ultimate source document.“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.” –New International Version (©2011).“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.” –New American Standard Bible (©1995).

My generation has pursued the sinful nature known as “selfish ambitions” (see Galatians 5:20) in America, failing our duties to God and Country, literally selling our own great-grandchildren into economic, cultural, even religious slavery…yes slavery.

My prayer is “we who are The Problem, will become The Proof!” Our posterity deserve it.

Basis of American Law
Honor and Virtue“The institution of delegated power implies that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence.” –Alexander Hamilton“If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded.” –Noah Webster.

Honor
Daniel Webster 1828 Dictionary.
n. on’or. [L. honor, honos.].
On or upon my honor, words accompanying a declaration which pledge one’s honor or reputation for the truth of it. The members of the house of lords in Great Britain are not under oath, but give their opinions on their honor.

Laws of honor, among persons of fashion, signify certain rules by which their social intercourse is regulated and which are founded on a regard to reputation. These laws require a punctilious attention to decorum in external deportment, but admit of the foulest violations of moral duty.Court of honor, a court of chivalry; a court of civil and criminal jurisdiction, having power to redress injuries of honor and to hold pleas respecting matters of arms and deeds of war.Honor, v.t on’or. [L. honoro.].
1. To revere; to respect; to treat with deference and submission, and perform relative duties to.
Honor thy father and thy mother. –Ex. 20.“This prohibition includes a precept which is the foundation of the whole law, that we take the Lord for our God, acknowledge that he is God, accept him for ours, adore him with admiration and humble reverence, and set our affections entirely upon him.” –Matthew Henry

“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” –George Washington (1796).

Note…“till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people” and realize no one State has sovereignty over the other 49 States, but two-thirds of the States acting in unity can change anything because they become that “authentic act” recognized by our Constitution as the legal agents of change. State sovereignty is limited to its borders, so one State cannot act or speak for any other State, yet two-thirds of all States in unity, have sovereignty over all States and can rewrite the contract between all States, our Constitution. This is the only honorable protocol to change.

Honor cuts both ways in the contract between sovereign states that created our Supreme Court.

Massachusetts v. Mellon…“The bill requires us to control the legislature of Georgia, and to restrain the exertion of its physical force. The propriety of such an interposition by the court may be well questioned; it savors too much of the exercise of political power to be within the proper province of the judicial department.”

And Mr. Justice Thompson, with whom Mr. Justice Story concurred, in the course of an opinion, said (p. 30 U.S. 75):

“It is only where the rights of persons or property are involved, and when such rights can be presented under some judicial form of proceedings, that courts of justice can interpose relief. This court can have no right to pronounce an abstract opinion upon the constitutionality of a state law. Such law must be brought into actual or threatened operation, upon rights properly falling under judicial cognizance, or a remedy is not to be had here.”

BIG NOTE…Chief Justice Roberts’ case references with his comments, welded together these points, which collectively confirm, approve and advocate state interposition when…

A. Only where rights of persons or property are involved can courts of justice interpose relief. (Examples, Obamacare, second amendment rights, United Nations Treaties, Agenda 21, Core Curriculum…who knows what challenges our posterity will face?)
B. Legal process our State will follow (form of proceedings) is detailed and documented.
C. In actual or threatened operation upon RIGHTS properly under judicial cognizance.
D. “Rights can be presented”…complete, detailed list of our grievances documented in some judicial form of proceedings, as in a plaintiff complaint or a defendants response.

“Honor is truly sacred, but holds a lower rank in the scale of moral excellence than virtue. Indeed the former is part of the latter, and consequently has not equal pretensions to support a frame of government productive of human happiness.” –John Adams.

Foundation of American Law
The Holy Bible“The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty; and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. We waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity, by means of the Bible; for this divine book, above all others favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws.” –Benjamin Rush.“This prohibition includes a precept which is the foundation of the whole law, that we take the Lord for our God, acknowledge that he is God, accept him for ours, adore him with admiration and humble reverence, and set our affections entirely upon him.” –Matthew Henry.“To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.” –George Washington 1778.“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –John Adams.“[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us, that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.” –Daniel Webster.Have you really read or studied “The Holy Bible” or mostly listened to lectures from it?

Did you know…
At the time of the signing of the Constitution the predominant language spoken in America was Scottish. Few know it, as even fewer Americans have invested time to discover treasures in our true American history, but we must know the truth and embrace it before we can be set free.When the Pilgrims came to what would become America, the only Bible used at that time was the “Geneva Bible.” Have you personally read the Geneva Bible our forefathers based our law on, or question if your copy of scripture is the actual source document, or did you simply accept as absolute truth whatever several layers of committees of men translated from the actual source documents into your English version of scripture?Since God’s Word source was Hebrew and Aramaic only for Old Testament and only Greek for New Testament, every other language is a translation by scholars, often committees funded with agendas advocating for a doctrine of “man created” spin, including Reformation denominations, at best.The Geneva Bible is the Bible with marginal notes authored by John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale and many other leaders of the Reformation. The Geneva Bible was the predominant English translation during the period in which the English and Scottish Reformations gained great impetus.The Geneva Bible of 1591 was the edition carried by the Pilgrims when they fled to America. As such, it directly provided much of the genius and inspiration which carried those courageous and faithful souls through their trials, and provided the spiritual, intellectual and legal basis for establishment and flourishing of the colonies. Thus, it became the foundation for establishment of the American nation.The 1560 Geneva Bible was the first to have Bible chapters divided into numbered verses. The translation is the work of religious leaders exiled from England after the death of King Edward VI in 1553. Almost every chapter has marginal notes to create greater understanding of scripture.

The marginal notes often reflected Calvinistic and Protestant reformation influences, not yet accepted by the Church of England.

King James I in the late 16th century pronounced the Geneva Bible marginal notes as being: “partial, untrue, seditious, and savoring of dangerous and traitorous conceits.”

In every copy of each edition the word “breeches” rather than “aprons” was used in Genesis 3:7, which accounts for why the Geneva Bible is sometime called the “Breeches” Bible.

The Church of England never authorized or sanctioned the Geneva Bible. However, it was frequently used, without “authority,” both to read the scripture lessons, and to preach from.

It was preeminent as a household Bible, and continued so until the middle of the 17th century. The convenient size, cheap price, chapters divided into numbered verses and extensive marginal notes were popular.

The Geneva Bible is a critical, yet almost completely forgotten part of the Protestant Reformation. Driven out of England by the persecutions of Bloody Mary, several future leaders of the Reformation came to Geneva to create a pure and accurate translation of the Holy Writ.

Chris Trueman BA (Hons), MA, Historian, compiled extensive research in their motivation to gather in Geneva in pursuit of “a pure and accurate translation of The Holy Bible.”

Trueman exposes the Catholic Church had three shameful, corrupt ways of raising revenue.Relics: These were officially sanctioned by the Vatican. They were pieces of straw, hay, white feathers from a dove, pieces of the cross etc. that could be sold to people as the things that had been the nearest to Jesus on Earth. The money raised went straight to the Church and to the Vatican. These holy relics were keenly sought after as the people saw their purchase as a way of pleasing God Jehovah. It also showed that you had honored God Jehovah by spending your money on relics associated with his Son, Jesus Christ.Indulgences: These were ‘certificates’ produced in bulk that had been pre-signed by the Pope which pardoned a person’s sins and gave you access to heaven. Basically if you knew that you had sinned you would wait until a “Pardoner” was in your region selling an indulgence and purchase one as the Pope, being God’s representative on Earth, would forgive your sins and you would be pardoned. This industry was later expanded to allow people to buy an indulgence for a dead relative who might be in purgatory or Hell and relieve that relative of his sins. By doing this you would be seen by the Catholic Church of “committing a Christian act” and this would elevate your status in the eyes of God. You could buy these “blessings from God,” literally.Pilgrimages: These were very much supported by the Catholic Church as a pilgrim would end up at a place of worship that was owned by the Catholic Church and money could be made by the sale of badges, holy water, certificates to prove you had been etc. and completed your journey.It was the issue of indulgences that angered one Priest, Martin Luther, into speaking out against them, exposing their evil, potentially a very dangerous thing to do.

The Roman Catholic Church was all powerful in Europe in the 1500s era. There was no legal alternative. The Catholic Church jealously guarded its position and anybody who was deemed to have gone against the Catholic Church was labeled a heretic and burnt at the stake, publicly.

The Catholic Church did not tolerate any deviance from its teachings as any appearance of ‘going soft’ might have been interpreted as a sign of weakness which would be exploited.

Why was the Roman Catholic Church so powerful? The people were gullible because they had no personal access to a Bible or scrolls of scripture, so whatever priests claimed was in scripture, the people had to believe, since only the Church had scripture, other than Jewish Synagogues.

Only priests in Christian churches had scripture documents and read from them publicly, so the people were captive audiences starved and desperate to experience God Jehovah and learn His ways. It was only the Catholic Church or Jewish Synagogue and 95 percent were not Jewish.

Jewish families were renowned long before Jesus birth for memorization of scripture, direct from scrolls penned by scribes in the original Hebrew and Aramaic language undefiled by human translation issues. Had Jewish Rabbis strayed in their scripture teaching, elder Jews would have personal knowledge and brought correction immediately, because they had personal knowledge from source documents.

Christian families had no such discipline, and were at the mercy of others to educate them.

Can you see here the same dangers Mark Twain exposed in our nation? Are we not today repeating the tragic gullibility of pre America Europeans in the 1500s?

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass
farthing.” –Mark Twain.

They had excuses we simply do not have. No Bibles existed. 75 percent could not read. One-hundred percent were intimidated by the Church, so whatever the Church said was bought and resold by the masses.
No personal copies of the Bible existed, so no home had the Bible to study and learn God Jehovah’s ways. Priests were judge, jury, supreme court and executioner…absolute power that created unspeakable evil by the Church, as they were indeed above the law.

Its power had built up over the centuries in reliance on illiteracy, ignorance, superstition on the part of the populace. It had been indoctrinated into the people over many generations that they could only get to heaven via the Church. Parents and priests were honored, above challenge.

This gave a priest enormous power at a local level on behalf of the Catholic Church. The local population viewed the local priest as their ‘passport’ to heaven as they had been taught this from birth by the local priest. Such a message was constantly being repeated to ignorant people in church service after church service, family meals, generation to generation. Keeping your priest happy was seen as a prerequisite to going to heaven. Challenging a priest was a death sentence.

This relationship between people and Church was essentially based on money – hence the huge wealth of the Catholic Church. Rich families could buy high positions for their sons in the Catholic Church and this satisfied their belief that they would go to heaven and attain salvation. However, a peasant had to pay for a child to be christened (this had to be done as a first step to getting to heaven as the people were told that an unbaptized child could not go to heaven); you had to pay to get married and you had to pay to bury someone from your family in holy ground, pay a priest to pray dead family members out of Hell or Purgatory into heaven, etc.

What would you pay to buy your spouse or child, a ticket to heaven, or to keep one out of hell?

One would pay a sum to the Church via the collection at the end of each service (as God was omnipresent he would see if anyone cheated on him), you had to pay tithes (one-tenth of your annual income had to be paid to the Church which could be either in money or “in kind” such as seed, animals, personal favors, etc.) and you were expected to work on church land for free for a specified number of days per week. The days required varied from region to region but if you were working on church land you could not be working on your own land growing food etc. and this could be more than just an irritant to a peasant as he would not be producing for his family or preparing for the next year.

However, unfair and absurd this might appear to someone in these modern days, it was the accepted way of life in 1500 as “this was how it had always been” and nobody really knew any different way was possible, so very few were willing to speak out against the Catholic Church as the consequences were too appalling to contemplate.

Heresy was visibly punished with public burnings which you were expected to attend. Our First Amendment was first for a reason, to eliminate heresy laws entirely in the Judeo-Christian arena.

Possession of printed scripture was a brutal death sentence for the reader and the printer, normally public burning while alive and bound to a staked pole, so the flesh often melted away before death or even loss of consciousness. Some were tied to the stake in public, then disemboweled so death came a bit quicker. Brutal torture…so you and I could read a personal printed copy of The Holy Bible today. Bloody Mary slaughtered Bible printers en masse.

Tyranny choked religious freedom in the 1540s and into the 1550s. After King Henry VIII, King Edward VI took the throne, and after his death, the reign of Queen ‘Bloody’ Mary was the next obstacle to the printing of the Bible in English.

She was possessed in her quest to return England to the Roman Church. In 1555, John ‘Thomas Matthew’ Rogers and Thomas Cranmer were both burned at the stake. Mary went on to burn Reformers at the stake by the hundreds for the “crime” of being a Protestant and not a Catholic. This era was known as the Marian Exile, and the refugees fled from England with little hope of ever seeing their home or friends again.

Did you know…
This is the birthplace of American history, and our law?

I detail much more in my 488-page history book “THE Christian Nation Revolution, Regeneration,” which is the Christian Patriots companion to The Holy Bible, as it provides the truth of America’s founding…European Catholic leaders who murdered to protect their evil, mass murder of Bible readers and printers, and constant fear if you chose to worship in a manner different from the one approved way sanctioned by the one approved Church.

Public executions of these spiritual giants, all heroes you and I as Christians owe an enormous debt we can never repay, were the motivation behind desperate pilgrims willing to load their entire families and meager possessions, risking everything to settle a new land where nobody would ever be murdered over religious doctrine or scripture disputes.

We must know where we came from and insure our posterity preserves our true heritage, in order to honor those who laid down their lives for our God and Country. It is our citizen duty.

John Huss was accused of heresy and granted a safe passage to Constance in modern Switzerland to defend himself at trial. He never got his trial as he was arrested regardless of his guarantee of a safe passage by the Catholic Church and burnt in public. The Catholic Church was above law in these times, for the same reasons Mark Twain found as THE PROBLEM!

I am not bashing Catholics here, but rather presenting incontrovertible history every citizen must know in order to recognize to prevent repeating history from our ignorance and apathy. Only continuing our similar ignorance and apathy can and will destroy our nation. God forbid it.

Concerned about the influence that the Catholic Church had on the existing translations of the Bible from the Latin, with unscrupulous Catholic leaders preying on the masses, rich and poor, lining personal pockets and church coffers without shame, these men assembled in Geneva turned to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts to produce the Geneva Bible.

This made the Geneva Bible the first complete Bible to be translated into English from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.

The creation of the Geneva Bible was a substantial undertaking. Its authors spent over two years, working diligently day and night by candlelight, to finish the translation and the commentaries.

The entire project was funded by the exiled English congregation in Geneva, making the translation a work supported by the people with no agenda and not by an authoritarian church or monarch who translated in the favor of their doctrine or agenda.

All the marginal commentaries were finished by 1599, making the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible the most complete study aide for Biblical scholars and students. This edition does not contain the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha’s notes are minimal or absent in other editions.

Additional highlights of this edition include maps of the Exodus route and Joshua’s distribution of land, a name and subject index, and Psalms sung by the English congregation in Geneva.

The greatest distinction of the Geneva Bible, however, is the extensive collection of marginal notes that it contains. Prominent Reformation leaders such as John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Theodore Beza and Anthony Gilby wrote the majority of these notes in order to explain and interpret the scriptures.

The notes comprise nearly 300,000 words, or nearly one-third the length of the Bible itself, and they are justifiably considered the most complete source of Protestant religious thought available.

Owing to the marginal notes and the superior quality of the translation, the Geneva Bible became the most widely read and influential English Bible of the 16th and 17th centuries. It was continually printed from 1560 to 1644 in over 200 different editions.

It was the Bible of choice for many of the greatest writers, thinkers, and historical figures of the Reformation era. William Shakespeare’s plays and the writings of John Milton and John Bunyan were clearly influenced by the Geneva Bible. Oliver Cromwell issued a pamphlet containing excerpts from the Geneva Bible to his troops during the English Civil War.

When the Pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower they took with them exclusively the Geneva Bible.

Therefore, we know it was the origin and basis of American law, yet King James succeeded in destroying it…so well that most Americans over the past 200 years have only seen a King James Bible and believe it alone is the “true word of God.”  Why? “Somebody said it was true” and nobody cared enough to check it out. I regret my own neglect in my earlier years.

The marginal notes of the Geneva Bible enraged the Catholic Church, since the notes deemed the act of confession to men – the Catholic Bishops – as unjustified by Holy Scripture.

“Man should confess to God only;” man’s private life was man’s private life. The notes also infuriated King James, since they allowed disobedience to tyrannical kings.

King James went so far as to make ownership of the Geneva Bible a felony.

He then proceeded to make his own version of the Bible, but without the marginal notes that had so disturbed him. Consequently, during King James’s reign, and into the reign of Charles I, the Geneva Bible was gradually replaced by the King James Bible.

One last question.
Did you know…
The King James Bible originally had 16 more books in it, which bridged the time gap between the Old and New Testament? Why are those 16 books omitted in today’s King James Version?Martin Luther read them all and declared them most worthy of reading.So, have you really read The Holy Bible, the foundation of American law?

Matthew Henry Commentaries
Reverend Matthew Henry was a 17th and early 18th Century minister of the Gospel in Chester, England, who died in 1714. His personal Bible research he documented, following examples of spiritual giants whose comments on scripture were printed in the Geneva Bible.Matthew Henry carefully read and studied the Bible personally, read the opinions of others, then formed his personal beliefs and values accordingly, as the Bible instructs all men to do, particularly in 2 Timothy 2:15.

“Study to show yourself approved of God, a workman that needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing (correctly handling) the Word of Truth.” – 2 Timothy 2:15.

“First among the mighty for general usefulness we are bound to mention the man whose name is a household word, Matthew Henry. He is most pious and pithy, sound and sensible, suggestive and sober, terse and trustworthy.” –Renowned preacher Charles Spurgeon.

Compare your own Bible study notes on these Commandments and ask yourself if your personal research of source documents reveal error or omission in these commentaries, or are you The Problem, as Mark Twain describes, having listened to Bible teachers over decades but not personally reviewing source documents like the Geneva Bible?

As one who was The Problem, I will add my own personal commentary after each of Henry’s, because I did my own personal research to become The Proof! Bear with me. It is worth it.

Commandment I
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” –Exodus 20:3.The First Commandment concerns the object of our worship, Jehovah, and him only (v. 3): Thou shalt have no other gods before me.The Egyptians, and other neighboring nations, had many gods, the creatures of their own fancy, strange gods, new gods; this law was prefixed because of that transgression, and, Jehovah being the God of Israel, they must entirely cleave to him, and not be for any other, either of their own invention or borrowed from their neighbors.This was the sin they were most in danger of now that the world was so over spread with polytheism, which yet could not be rooted out effectually but by the gospel of Christ. The sin against this commandment which we are most in danger of is giving the glory and honour to any creature which are due to God only.Pride makes a god of self, covetousness makes a god of money, sensuality makes a god of the belly; whatever is esteemed or loved, feared or served, delighted in or depended on, more than God, that (whatever it is) we do in effect make a god of. This prohibition includes a precept which is the foundation of the whole law, that we take the Lord for our God, acknowledge that he is God, accept him for ours, adore him with admiration and humble reverence, and set our affections entirely upon him.In the last words, before me, it is intimated, (1.) That we cannot have any other God but he will certainly know it. There is none besides him but what is before him. Idolaters covet secrecy; but shall not God search this out? (2.) That it is very provoking to him; it is a sin that dares him to his face, which he cannot, which he will not, overlook, nor connive at (see Ps. 44:20, 21).

Louie E. Johnston Jr. commentary…
My research found “before me” in the Hebrew and Aramaic words to mean “in my sight,” which adds an entirely different component not addressed by Henry or any other scholars I had read. I would have missed this jewel had I been satisfied in letting others do my duty unto God to study, but in doing it personally I found personal treasure.
Now it reads “Thou shalt have no other gods “in my sight”…not just in priority ahead of God Jehovah, but “in my sight”…where is a place God Jehovah cannot see? There is none.

His number one, most important rule in His priority, or He would not have listed it as number one, is “have no other gods in His sight”…which immediately exposes violations in my mind.

America as a nation is fully visible to God Jehovah. Muslim mosques did not exist in America until after 1900, the first being in Iowa. Muslims worship the Moon-god of Arabia who married the Sun-god of Arabia, and their offspring are the stars, thus their “symbol” of the Crescent Moon and Star. I have written several books on this issue now, from personal research I would have missed entirely had I chose to listen to others who claimed to have all the answers.

It is the process of personal duty to self-educate I am selling here that Mark Twain also believed.

Commandment III
“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” –Exodus 20:7.The Third Commandment concerns the manner of our worship, that it be done with all possible reverence and seriousness, v. 7.We have here, (1.) A strict prohibition: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. It is supposed that, having taken Jehovah for their God, they would make mention of his name (for thus all people will walk every one in the name of his god); this command gives a needful caution not to mention it in vain, and it is still as needful as ever.We take God’s name in vain, [1.] By hypocrisy, making a profession of God’s name, but not living up to that profession. Those that name the name of Christ, but do not depart from iniquity, as that name binds them to do, name it in vain; their worship is vain (Mt. 15:7-9), their oblations are vain (Isa. 1:11, 13), their religion is vain, Jam. 1:26.[2.] By covenant-breaking; if we make promises to God, binding our souls with those bonds to that which is good, and yet perform not to the Lord our vows, we take his name in vain (Mt. 5:33), it is folly, and God has no pleasure in fools (Eccl. 5:4), nor will he be mocked, (Gal. 6:7).

Louie E. Johnston Jr. commentary…
My research did not find the same emphasis I heard in 1,000 church sermons over my 62 years, which was limited to “using God’s name in or as a curse,” in anger or as a very bad habit with other profanity. I discovered my duty to name his name regularly in His honor, then walk the walk of honor to shun iniquity, obeying “the law” of God by embracing it from love. Not honoring His terms in the Bible, our contract with God, is too often a self-serving “Grace Trap” to separate myself from God.  I want no part of it.

Commandment V
“Honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” –Exodus 20:12

The Fifth Commandment concerns the duties we owe to our relations; those of children to their parents are alone specified: Honour thy father and thy mother, which includes,
1. A decent respect to their persons, an inward esteem of them outwardly expressed upon all occasions in our conduct towards them. Fear them (Lev. 19:3), give them reverence, (Heb. 12:9). The contrary to this is mocking at them and despising them, (Prov. 30:17).
2. Obedience to their lawful commands; so it is expounded (Eph. 6:1-3): “Children, obey your parents, come when they call you, go where they send you, do what they bid you, refrain from what they forbid you; and this, as children, cheerfully, and from a principle of love.’’ Though you have said, “We will not,’’ yet afterwards repent and obey, (Mt. 21:29).
3. Submission to their rebukes, instructions, and corrections; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, out of conscience towards God.
4. Disposing of themselves with the advice, direction, and consent, of parents, not alienating their property, but with their approbation.
5. Endeavouring, in every thing, to be the comfort of their parents, and to make their old age easy to them, maintaining them if they stand in need of support, which our Saviour makes to be particularly intended in this commandment, (Mt. 15:4-6).

The reason annexed to this commandment is a promise: That thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Having mentioned, in the preface to the commandments, has bringing them out of Egypt as a reason for their obedience, he here, in the beginning of the second table, mentions his bringing them into Canaan, as another reason; that good land they must have upon their thoughts and in their eye, now that they were in the wilderness. They must also remember, when they came to that land, that they were upon their good behavior, and that, if they did not conduct themselves well, their days should be shortened in that land, both the days of particular persons who should be cut off from it, and the days of their nation which should be removed out of it. But here a long life in that good land is promised particularly to obedient children.

Those that do their duty to their parents are most likely to have the comfort of that which their parents gather for them and leave to them; those that support their parents shall find that God, the common Father, will support them. This promise is expounded (Eph. 6:3), That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

Those who, in conscience towards God, keep this and the rest of God’s Commandments, may be sure that it shall be well with them, and that they shall live as long on earth as Infinite Wisdom sees good for them, and that what they may seem to be cut short of on earth shall be abundantly made up in eternal life, the heavenly Canaan which God will give them.

Louie E. Johnston Jr. commentary…
My research found all 10 Commandments were about honor. Commandments One-Four were about honor to God, while Five-Ten were about honor to humans and all 10 Commandments were about personal, private human relationships with God and man.A key new component in the word “honor,” which I researched in the original Hebrew and Aramaic to mean “protect the dignity,” so the verse reads “Protect the dignity of thy Father and Mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”Applying that new phrase in all 10 Commandments gives new truth I would have missed without personal research. Here is the true basis of most, if not all, civilized law.Honor, “protect the dignity of,” God Jehovah, is the duty and right of every person who “name His name.”

Allowing false gods and false religions “in His sight” is a blatant dereliction of our duty to God, and we will be held accountable…collectively as a nation, and individually.

Commandment IX
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” –Exodus 20:16The Ninth Commandment concerns our own and our neighbor’s good name: Thou shalt not bear false witness, v. 16. This forbids,
1. Speaking falsely in any matter, lying, equivocating, and any way devising and designing to deceive our neighbor.
2. Speaking unjustly against our neighbor, to the prejudice of his reputation; and (which involves the guilty of both),
3. Bearing false witness against him, laying to his charge things that he knows not, either judicially, upon oath (by which the Third Commandment, and the sixth of eighth, as well as this, are broken), or extrajudicially, in common converse, slandering, backbiting, tale-bearing, aggravating what is done amiss and making it worse than it is, and any way endeavouring to raise our own reputation upon the ruin of our neighbor’s.

Louie E. Johnston Jr. commentary…
My research found the word “bear” in Hebrew and Aramaic literally translates “put up with” or “let stand unchallenged”…so I am charged not to “put up with,” or “let stand unchallenged” ANY false witness.

If I fail to speak up to challenge a falsehood, I condone it by not doing my duty to expose it, and “condone” means I am just as guilty as the liar bearing false witness, even if I have no clue he/she is lying. If it comes out of your mouth, you alone are responsible for it being truth.

Would that we live in such a godly way, truth and justice would again be our national pride.

How can we pursue truth, particularly legal understanding, if we “put up with” false witness, on television, radio, or court decisions, new laws, Executive orders, Internet, church or local bar?

Power to Produce

“You may say to yourself, ‘My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.’ But remember the Lord your God, for it is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth.” –Deuteronomy 8:17, 18.

The same power to produce wealth, reveals God’s gift to reward personal effort made in faith.

When we apply ourselves to do our personal duty as American citizens, put forth the same personal effort intensity that we invest daily to obtain wealth, in personal study of God Jehovah, The Holy Bible, historical documents, our U.S. Constitution, laws, landmark laws and legal opinions, we will transition from The Problem to The Proof!
Only then does governing power reside in “We the People.” We self-educate and govern, or we abdicate our citizen duties to become slaves of whoever we do listen to that we base our beliefs and convictions upon.

The power to produce is within each of us, as the Bible says in Matthew 6:21 “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Do we treasure truth, knowledge, God and Country with the same passion and intensity as we pursue wealth? Our civic duty requires it.

Only in purposed effort do we become The Proof…as Jesus said…“Salt and Light” in our nation is our calling, duty, and sacred honor as the Judeo-Christian Patriots he entrusted the Christian nation with, for such a time as this.

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.”

“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” –Matthew 5:13-16
Roberts Affirms James Madison Interposition Rights and Duties

James Madison, in his Virginia Resolution of 1798, asserted state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the Federal Government and the people of their State, whenever the Federal Government exceeds their enumerated Constitution powers or authority.

The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed “State Interposition Rights” in great detail, embedded by Justice Roberts in National Federation of Business et al v. Sebelius…commonly called “PPACA” or the “Affordable Care Act” or simply the “Obamacare Decision.”

The genius in embedding landmark opinion that affirms states rights and duties 214 years after Madison introduced Interposition, in an unpopular majority decision to the majority of Americans, particularly conservatives who had no clue Justice Roberts embedded, made the case and instructed the process that define and defend states rights, is a Trojan horse concept.

I want to be clear that his opinion advocates for interposition, not nullification.

Roberts’ precedent setting opinion makes interposition the law of the land, not nullification.

Roberts voided whatever “nullification” arguments remain, so no need to go there any longer, unless you just want to argue, in which case I make the case later in “The Nullification Trap.”

Here I have compiled directly from Roberts’ landmark opinion, with page numbers I welcome you to check out for yourself, as I did personally. I rely on my ability to read for myself.

Not one word has been changed from his opinion excerpts below. I have only made bold certain points of emphasis we will discuss after you have read his words from the source for yourself.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion…
Page 47
That insight has led this Court to strike down federal legislation that commandeers a State’s legislative or administrative apparatus for federal purposes. See, e.g. Printz, 521 U.S., at 933 (striking down federal legislation compelling state law enforcement officers to perform federally mandated background checks on handgun purchasers); New York, supra, at 174-175 invalidating provisions of an Act that would compel a State to either take title to nuclear waste or enact particular state waste regulations). It has also led us to scrutinize Spending Clause legislation to ensure that Congress is not using financial inducements to exert a “power akin to undue influence.” Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590 (1937). Congress may use its spending power to create incentives for States to act in accordance with federal policies. But when “pressure turns into compulsion,” ibid., the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism.

“[T]he Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.” New York, 48 505 U.S., at 178. That is true whether Congress directly commands a State to regulate or indirectly coerces a State to adopt a federal regulatory system as its own.

Permitting the Federal Government to force the States to implement a federal program would threaten the political accountability key to our federal system. “[W]here the Federal Government directs the States to regulate, it may be state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramifications of their decision.” Id., at 169. Spending Clause programs do not pose this danger when a State has a legitimate choice whether to accept the federal conditions in exchange for federal funds. In such a situation, state officials can fairly be held politically accountable for choosing to accept or refuse the federal offer. But when the State has no choice, the Federal Government can achieve its objectives without accountability, just as in New York and Printz. Indeed, this danger is heightened when Congress acts under the Spending Clause, because Congress can use that power to implement federal policy it could not impose directly under its enumerated powers. We addressed such concerns in Steward Machine. That case involved a federal tax on employers that was abated if the businesses paid into a state unemployment plan that met certain federally specified conditions. An employer sued, alleging that the tax was impermissibly “driv[ing] the State legislatures under the whip of economic pressure into the enactment of unemployment compensation laws at the bidding of the central government.” 301 U.S., at 587. We acknowledged the danger that the Federal Government might employ its taxing power to exert a “power akin to undue influence” upon the States. Id. at 590.

Page 49
“As our decision in Steward Machine confirms, Congress may attach appropriate conditions to federal taxing and spending programs to preserve its control over the use of federal funds. In the typical case we look to the States to defend their prerogatives by adopting “the simple expedient of not yielding” to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace the federal policies as their own. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 482 (1923). “The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.”

Page 4
Our cases refer to this general power of governing, possessed by the States but not by the Federal Government, as the “police power.” See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618-619 (2000). “State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 181 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the police power is controlled by 50 different States instead of one national sovereign, the facets of governing that touch on citizens’ daily lives are normally administered by smaller governments closer to the governed. The Framers thus ensured that powers which “in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people” were held by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy. The Federalist No. 45, at 293 (J. Madison). The independent power of the States also serves as a check on the power of the Federal Government: “By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.” –Bond v. United States, 564 U.S.

Page 28
As our jurisprudence under the Necessary and Proper Clause has developed, we have been very deferential to Congress’s determination that a regulation is “necessary.” We have thus upheld laws that are “‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to the authority’s ‘beneficial exercise.’” Comstock, 560 U.S., at ___ (slip op., at 5) (quoting McCulloch, supra, at 413, 418). But we have also carried out our responsibility to declare unconstitutional those laws that undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution. Such laws, which are not “consist[ent] with the letter and spirit of the constitution,” McCulloch, supra, at 421, are not “proper [means] for carrying into Execution” Congress’s enumerated powers. Rather, they are, “in the words of The Federalist, ‘merely acts of usurpation’ which ‘deserve to be treated as such.’” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 924 (1997) (alterations omitted) (quoting The Federalist No. 33, at 204 (A. Hamilton)); see also New York, 505 U.S., at 177; Comstock, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 5) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment) (“It is of fundamental importance to consider whether essential attributes of state sovereignty are compromised by the assertion of federal power under the Necessary and Proper Clause . . .”).

End of Roberts’ embedded opinion guide to state interposition.

Point by Point Analysis

(Roberts’ opinion analyzed point by point, the basis of my State Interposition Act)

Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion…
Page 47
That insight has led this Court to strike down federal legislation that commandeers a State’s legislative or administrative apparatus for federal purposes. See, e.g. Printz, 521 U.S., at 933 (striking down federal legislation compelling state law enforcement officers to perform federally mandated background checks on handgun purchasers).

Louie E. Johnston Jr.…
SCOTUS Printz decision precedent says States cannot be compelled to action that commandeers a State’s legislative or administrative apparatus for federal purposes.

Second amendment hubris from misguided federal actors have no merit in sovereign states opposing such encroachment or usurpation. Enacting a state law following my interposition legal process, on the issue of “federal law, Executive order, United Nations Treaty,” etc. seeking to restrict, monitor activities, or in any way control our sovereign state citizen’s second amendment rights to “keep and bear arms,” including whatever “We the People” determine is “adequate” arms and ammunition, even more ammunition than one could reasonably use in a 10-year war, is the proper protocol of honor.

SCOTUS will honor, because our resistance follows our codified interposition legal process, documenting our grievances appropriately, and our State honors our contract with all the other 49 States by resisting properly, in mutual respect.

The Obama “background checks” law, Executive order, or ATF rule or procedure, or other mandate requiring a State to act to enforce for federal purposes, has no merit, having already been decided, numerous times, by SCOTUS, so our “State Interposition Act,” when enacted, is proper legal process that honors our duties and rights as a sovereign state, yet interposes to stop illegal federal action.

Here we honor our Constitution (contract) and our 49 sister States in doing so. Our new “State Interposition Law” on this issue will prevail in perpetuity for our posterity, ready and able to interpose and stop any federal usurpation or encroachment.

Chief Justice Roberts…
New York, supra, at 174-175 invalidating provisions of an Act that would compel a State to either take title to nuclear waste or enact particular state waste regulations). It has also led us to scrutinize Spending Clause legislation to ensure that Congress is not using financial inducements to exert a “power akin to undue influence.” Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590 (1937). Congress may use its spending power to create incentives for States to act in accordance with federal policies. But when “pressure turns into compulsion,” ibid., the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism.

“[T]he Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.” –New York, 48 505 U.S., at 178. That is true whether Congress directly commands a State to regulate or indirectly coerces a State to adopt a federal regulatory system as its own.

Johnston…
“But when ‘pressure turns into compulsion,’ ibid., the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism.” Federal Government can bribe and pressure States to do their bidding, only if State legislators are weak enough to allow it by accepting federal bribe money or cowing under pressure, instead of “acting like it” when claiming state sovereignty.

“Congress cannot require a State to regulate”…period. If they try, my interposition legal process will prevail when
executed.

The Problem is States are not united, but divided and conquered by an intentional strategy by those ignorants who would destroy our Republic form of government and state sovereignty.

States abandon the greater good when seduced by selfish greed to “get our share of the pie or another State will get our share”…ignoring the obvious fact THERE IS NO PIE. State legislators should know better, and good ones I know do know better, but they are too few.

THERE IS NO PIE to cut pieces and hand out or fight over.

There is only a printing press that creates new money out of paper every time a State is seduced to accept it, always in high, seductive quantities that grease the wheels of tight state budgets.

By accepting that new paper money, every dollar in every pocket book, wallet, or bank account, is devalued and purchases less in goods and services than if no new paper money was created.

The U.S. dollar lost 30 percent of its value in President Obama’s four years after losing 30 percent in value during President Bush’s eight years. Fixed income seniors can tell you how it works as a tax that breaks their backs most, but hey, nobody listens until it happens to hit home in their family.

One example of complaining about having to create HOV lanes on interstates because it was dictated by the Federal Government. No it was not. States were given a choice to accept or reject hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding to maintain interstate highways, but if they did take the money…they have to create HOV lanes. He who has the gold, makes the rules.

Chief Justice Roberts…
Permitting the Federal Government to force the States to implement a federal program would threaten the political accountability key to our federal system. “[W]here the Federal Government directs the States to regulate, it may be state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramifications of their decision.” Id., at 169. Spending Clause programs do not pose this danger when a State has a legitimate choice whether to accept the federal conditions in exchange for federal funds. In such a situation, state officials can fairly be held politically accountable for choosing to accept or refuse the federal offer. But when the State has no choice, the Federal Government can achieve its objectives without accountability, just as in New York and Printz. Indeed, this danger is heightened when Congress acts under the Spending Clause, because Congress can use that power to implement federal policy it could not impose directly under its enumerated powers. We addressed such concerns in Steward Machine.

That case involved a federal tax on employers that was abated if the businesses paid into a state unemployment plan that met certain federally specified conditions. An employer sued, alleging that the tax was impermissibly “driv[ing] the State legislatures under the whip of economic pressure into the enactment of unemployment compensation laws at the bidding of the central government.” 301 U.S., at 587. We acknowledged the danger that the Federal Government might employ its taxing power to exert a “power akin to undue influence” upon the States. Id. at 590.

Johnston…
Fairness is an offspring of honor and virtue woven into our national fabric. Good referees look for actions where one team gains unfair advantage and stops it cold.

Political accountability is indeed key to our federal system, as it is the primary way the highest authorities in America, citizens, conduct their supervision responsibilities over elected officials.

Forcing States to do things on behalf of central government shifts accountability unfairly, which creates ripe interposition duties based on Constitutional rights. Here is the key to interposition defined by our Chief Justice. He may have understandably believed “We the People” would unite to spew out Obamacare in the presidential election of 2012, but it did not happen, and it remains.

State legislators in 28 States opposing Obamacare received my “Interposition Laws” doing so, but some, like Tennessee, did not act. My interaction with key Tennessee State legislators was entirely favorable, yet the session ended with no action on it. Modern health care research published has six of the top 10 most profitable health care companies in America, residing in Tennessee, with access and unlimited resources promoting Obamacare which will exponentially increase profits. In Tennessee, State legislators are part-time, earn $20,000 per year plus gas money and are not likely to jeopardize $500,000 annual incomes in private business over that $20,000.

The first rule in economics “everybody acts in their own best interests,” which I know also applies as the first rule in
politics.

This is what the Chief Justice is defining as political accountability, an unfair advantage taken when federal politicians try to saddle state politicians with public blame and ramifications, using them as shields. Interposition is the state duty and right in such cases.

“We acknowledged the danger that the Federal Government might employ its taxing power to exert a “power akin to undue influence” upon the States. Id. at 590.”

I could not find a better contradiction to the tax approval granted Obamacare by Justice Roberts in another section of his opinion. In every analysis I am drawn back to his comments, “States are sovereign and independent. Sometimes they have to act like it.”

Chief Justice Roberts…
Page 49
“As our decision in Steward Machine confirms, Congress may attach appropriate conditions to federal taxing and spending programs to preserve its control over the use of federal funds. In the typical case we look to the States to defend their prerogatives by adopting “the simple expedient of not yielding” to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace the federal policies as their own. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 482 (1923). “The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.”

Johnston…
How can the spirit and letter of this law and the clear language used here be any better?

How exciting to read for Federalists like myself, and our SCOTUS conservative justices.

Here is the root of intent with clear instructions to follow in order to make it functional.

Yes, it is made in the Commerce Clause section of the opinion, but it is the law of the land regardless of the section housing it.

“In the typical case” gives a broad unrestricted group application.

“We look to the States to defend their prerogatives” SCOTUS expects and approves States who defend their prerogatives, an awesome choice of words chosen to convey state sovereignty.

Webster’s Dictionary defines the word “Prerogatives”
“an exclusive or special right, power, or privilege: as (1): one belonging to an office or an official body (2): one belonging to a person, group, or class of individuals (3): one possessed by a nation as an attribute of sovereignty.”

So the section so vital to our focus should read:
“In the typical case we look to the States to defend (their prerogatives) exclusive, special rights, powers, or privilege possessed by States as an attribute of sovereignty.”

SCOTUS states very clearly here…States have exclusive special powers and privileges they expect States to defend.

SCOTUS guides States, even urges States to defend (interpose) as they describe and affirm their opinion that States are sovereign…this wording Chief Justice John Roberts chose from prior SCOTUS cases and embeds here with his personal stamp of approval, is a landmark opinion that SCOTUS expects States to defend (interpose) against federal tyranny.

SCOTUS provides clear instructions (to those who choose to read them) how States are to go about resisting, defending, interposition.

“By adopting ‘the simple expedient of not yielding’ to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace the federal policies as their own.”

“The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.”

Chief Justice John Roberts affirmed and confirmed this quote from a 1923 case, Massachusetts v. Mellon, then used it to call out States to do the duties and exercise special powers exclusively possessed by the States. Roberts’ stamp of approval for state sovereignty is inspiring.

Chief Justice Roberts…
Page 4
Our cases refer to this general power of governing, possessed by the States but not by the Federal Government, as the “police power.” See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618-619 (2000). “State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 181 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the police power is controlled by 50 different States instead of one national sovereign, the facets of governing that touch on citizens’ daily lives are normally administered by smaller governments closer to the governed. The Framers thus ensured that powers which “in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people” were held by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy. The Federalist No. 45, at 293 (J. Madison). The independent power of the States also serves as a check on the power of the Federal Government: “By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.” –Bond v. United States, 564 U.S.

Johnston…
“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” –George Washington, First Inaugural Address, 1789.

“The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.” –George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

“A little matter will move a party, but it must be something great that moves a nation.” –Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791.

Denying unalienable rights of personal liberty to any citizen is “something great that moves a nation” as in denying women the right to vote, poll taxes to disenfranchise poor voters, or discrimination against anyone because of skin color, sex, age, or other such factors where States abused their sovereignty powers and were rightly corrected by SCOTUS.

Too many days I personally watched the school bus packed full with black teens my age as it drove past me to the Haynes High School some 10 miles away. I was standing by the road at Maplewood High School where I attended and graduated after completing grades 7-12. I simply could not understand why those kids were bussed right by my high school instead of attending Maplewood. I asked my principal, who patiently and tenderly explained to this naive teenager why black kids attended black schools and white kids attended white schools.

Ten Southern States rejected Supreme Court orders to stop segregation of schools because of skin color. All 10 passed state “Nullification Laws” claiming state sovereignty was superior to SCOTUS and refused to integrate schools. I remember vividly watching on television the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, standing in front of the university entrance blocking the enrollment of an Alabama citizen who was fully qualified to attend the university, but blocked because he was black.

If states sovereignty were unlimited, schools would still be segregated and blacks would still be oppressed by some States who encroached upon personal liberty.

When your “States are sovereign” hubris bubbles up, and your “tenth amendment forever” pride overcomes you, and your “states rights” are the only way of thinking moves you to action…remember this example of why States cannot be totally sovereign in a Republic form of government, because States can inflict tyranny and injustice with equal or greater force and cover than federal government.

Yes, “States are sovereign” and independent, but their sovereignty ends where personal liberty begins. Blacks were denied equal rights because of skin color in the South particularly. I was truly blessed to experience my Maplewood High School, integrated my junior year in 1966, when the movie “Remember the Titans” was something I actually experienced playing center on our football team.

I often drove my new teammate, Walter Campbell home after football practices, just a couple of miles away, but on another planet being a predominantly black neighborhood. Walter was an outstanding athlete and person. His little brother, David left many cleat marks on my backside as he stepped on me to jump over my blocks carrying the ball from his tailback position. I was honored to be teammates.

Walter and I became good friends, constantly exchanging knowledge honestly about our families, cultures, races and we both were better men because we gained new mutual understanding and trust.

Thank God personal liberty is truly sovereign in America, trumping state sovereignty.

Chief Justice Roberts…
Page 28
As our jurisprudence under the Necessary and Proper Clause has developed, we have been very deferential to Congress’s determination that a regulation is “necessary.” We have thus upheld laws that are “‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to the authority’s ‘beneficial exercise.’” Comstock, 560 U.S., at ___ (slip op., at 5) (quoting McCulloch, supra, at 413, 418). But we have also carried out our responsibility to declare unconstitutional those laws that undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution. Such laws, which are not “consist[ent] with the letter and spirit of the constitution,” McCulloch, supra, at 421, are not “proper [means] for carrying into Execution” Congress’s enumerated powers. Rather, they are, “in the words of The Federalist, ‘merely acts of usurpation’ which ‘deserve to be treated as such.’” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 924 (1997) (alterations omitted) (quoting The Federalist No. 33, at 204 (A. Hamilton)); see also New York, 505 U.S., at 177; Comstock, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 5) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment) (“It is of fundamental importance to consider whether essential attributes of state sovereignty are compromised by the assertion of federal power under the Necessary and Proper Clause . . .”).

Johnston…
“Our responsibility to declare unconstitutional those laws that undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution.”

SCOTUS is not perfect, but neither are States who denied personal liberties to its citizens for hundreds of years because of their skin color. I was an adamant misguided advocate of 10th Amendment state sovereignty that had to eat crow when I did my citizen duty and personally researched our historic documents to discover tyranny is a state AND federal problem in our nation’s history.

It is clearly SCOTUS alone who has responsibility to declare unconstitutional those laws that undermine “the structure of government established by the Constitution,” which is a sacred obligatory contract each and every State agreed to abide by. Until such time as “We the People” in unity choose to change our Constitution by two-thirds of States approving, we the people must be the people and honor our sacred obligations to God and Country, particularly documented in our Constitution…remember, the U.S. Constitution is a contract signed by every State, uniting all States with equality, such that every State is sovereign and independent within its own borders, but cannot exercise, extend, or impose their state sovereignty upon any other State.

Those are the terms and conditions of the contract our forefathers in every State agreed to honor upon their sacred oath. We the people today and in the future are their posterity, with no right or need to dishonor their contract, as they built in the proper legal process to interpose and correct.

Further Supreme Court rulings as legal foundation
“No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the Constitution.” –Justice Story…Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448-449 (1830).

“When Congress threatens to terminate other grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept a Spending Clause program, the legislation runs counter to this Nation’s system of federalism.” –Cf. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 211. Pp. 45-51.

State Interposition Process

Defining and codifying “the simple expedient of not yielding” as Chief Justice John Roberts instructs, is confirmation of the James Madison 1798 declaration that States had the “Right and duty to interpose and defend its citizens from federal encroachment.

Interposition is clearly approved by Chief Justice John Roberts in his precedent-setting ruling, but interposition requires two basic elements nobody has documented prior to this writing.

The two basic elements “legal process” and “list of grievances,” built on the legal foundation of the American Constitution, is the only interposition our Supreme Court can defend. You will see these as the core elements in every “State Interposition Act” produced later in this book, ready for State legislators to enact with minimal customization…when we the people demand it.

Here we need to first drop anchor to focus on and absorb legal foundation truth our nation does not teach us in our schools, but were the source and resource of wisdom in our Founding Fathers sorely missing in today’s governments, state and federal.

No reasonable person can doubt the superior wisdom of our Founding Fathers to contemporary leaders who have collectively proven to be ignorant, inept, impotent, misguided, unwise people.

How can that be, when all our Founding Fathers had only The Holy Bible for textbook study, no schools, colleges, universities…yet possessed and demonstrated far superior wisdom?

God will not be mocked. The Holy Bible is our nation’s foundation for law and our existence.

On Panel Three of the Jefferson Memorial…

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.” –Thomas Jefferson.

Whenever you hear any misguided soul claiming ANY of our Founding Fathers were not Judeo-Christians to the core, and/or that Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were “deists,” which means God created everything and then disappeared forever, never to interact with men again, please know these people are THE PROBLEM, repeating hearsay gossip totally untrue. I know by PERSONAL RESEARCHING HISTORIC DOCUMENTS, so I am now THE PROOF!

Jefferson’s quote above and these below prove how ignorant “educated idiots” can truly be.
• “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
• “I know God will not give me anything I can’t handle. I just wish that He didn’t trust me so much.”
• “I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.”
• “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”
• “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.”
Precedent Principle in American Law

(Justice Roberts’ opinion embedded precedent)
American law is based on the principle of precedent, meaning that if a court has already ruled on a given legal issue and another case arises with the same legal issue, the holding in the previous case will be applied to the new case. The use of precedents helps to promote stability in the legal system, as all parties are given notice as to the current state of the law. Adhering to the use of precedent is also known as the doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: “it stands decided”).

Precedents also have a role to play when new legal issues are presented to courts. Parties for both sides of a case look to cases that have been decided in the past that bolster their current arguments. When deciding new legal issues, sometimes courts expand previous precedents. Sometimes they distinguish the case at hand from the established precedent by pointing out how the previous ruling is not applicable to the facts of the new case.

Although rare, sometimes courts overrule a precedent. Even if a lower court disagrees with a precedent established by a higher court, the lower court remains bound by that precedent until it is overruled by the higher court. For instance, a U.S. District Court cannot overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, but the U.S. Supreme Court may make a decision that, in effect, overrules itself. Courts within a given district and circuit are bound by precedents within their own districts and circuits, respectively. However, they are not necessarily bound by precedents in other districts and circuits.

Only U.S. Supreme Court precedents are binding on all courts. Often, the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear a case because different U.S. Courts of Appeals have come to different conclusions on the same legal issue. The Supreme Court may decide such cases in order to harmonize the law. The following examples illustrate precedents in the federal court system.

Example: Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled that students had a first amendment right to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Students in subsequent cases have tried to use Tinker to argue that various school regulations violated their first amendment rights.

In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), the Supreme Court held that high school administrators have the authority to censor articles in a student newspaper. The Court distinguished this case from Tinker, saying that the administrator’s actions did not violate the free speech rights of students because the school: 1) ultimately retained administrative authority over the paper; 2) it had to look out for the privacy rights of other students (which may have been compromised by certain articles in the paper); and 3) the articles in the paper could be seen as carrying the imprimatur of the school, i.e., readers might mistake the articles as the views of the school, and not those of the student journalists.

In Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. ___ (2007), the Supreme Court held that students do not have a right to promote speech (specifically, a banner reading “Bong Hits for Jesus”) at a school event that could be interpreted as advocating the use of illegal drugs. The Court distinguished this case from Tinker saying that Tinker’s speech was political and did not disrupt the learning environment. However, due to the adverse consequences of illegal drug use, the principal had a compelling interest in preventing this type of speech.

Thus, Tinker stands for the proposition that students have the right to express themselves in school so long as their conduct does not impinge on the rights of others.

However, Hazelwood and Morse are distinguished from Tinker, holding that this right is not absolute and does not extend to school newspapers or to speech promoting illegal drug use.

Source documents http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ConstitutionResources/SupremeCourtDialogs/JudicialInterpretationDiscussionTopics/Precedents.aspx.

My challenge to any takers is to find the Supreme Court decision which says America is no longer a Christian nation…it does not exist, yet the educated idiots in America claim it to be truth and uninformed citizens who are THE PROBLEM swallow it, hook, line and sinker.

Holy Trinity Church v. United States, issued in 1892 and written by Justice David Brewer:
“These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

Nobody at the time the Constitution was being ratified believed that the Constitution was intended or would have the effect of transforming America from a Christian nation to an atheistic nation. Civil government is always the legal enforcement of religious values.

Here is THE PROOF…U.S. Constitution, article 1, § 7, (a provision common to many state constitutions,) “That the executive shall have 10 days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.”

Had the Constitution been understood to be converting us from “a religious people” to a secular people, it would have been a matter of intense debate. There was no such debate.

The debate was whether the Federal Government had the power to make the Presbyterians or the Episcopalians (etc.) a state church. The outcome of this debate is far different from that of the [non-]debate on “separation of church and State,” whose outcome has been imposed on us by the imperfect courts. Citizen duties include impeachment and removal of judges, including every justice appointed “for life”…even SCOTUS is impeachable in our Republic when citizens demand our Congress do their sworn duties instead of being professional fund raisers who only spend 15 percent of their time actually doing those sworn duties demanded by their oath of office.

The Nullification Trap“Every man who loves peace, every man who loves his country, every man who loves liberty ought to have it ever before his eyes that he may cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of America and be able to set a due value on the means of preserving it.” –James Madison, Federalist No. 41., 1788.Can a “SOVEREIGN STATE” refuse to yield to federal government law, Executive order, or Supreme Court decision that a State deems unconstitutional or illegal, illegitimate otherwise?The answer is “YES,” absolutely, but NOT by “STATE NULLIFICATION LAWS.”NULLIFICATION CAN BE ACHIEVED…in multiple other legal ways we need to focus on and educate all citizens to fully understand. Otherwise it is a trap.

As a former “Tenther” whose limited knowledge had me believing the 10th Amendment was somehow superior to all the others and the Constitution, I was THE PROBLEM!

I discovered the proper legal process blessed by Chief Justice John Roberts in his 2012 opinion instructing sovereign states in a new precedent to “resist and not yield.”

His new written opinion clearly establishes new precedent in how States “have the right and duty to simply refuse to yield,” and that legal process defines INTERPOSITION as the approved process “to resist and not yield,” very different from NULLIFICATION.

Chief Justice Roberts’ 2012 opinion of SCOTUS sets new precedent giving States the legal process for their “right and duty to simply refuse to yield” to illegal federal law.

Wishful patriotic thinking deceives many State legislators regarding nullification, some claiming “Nullification has never been ruled on its merits by SCOTUS” (Supreme Court of the U.S.). That is dangerous error. Such deception or misinformation causes false security in illegal “Nullification Acts” SCOTUS has a long, consistent history of voiding.
Ten Southern States passed “Nullification Laws” opposing new anti-segregation laws. Supreme Court decisions demanded school integration. All 10 States are integrated.

Nullification is a state law “nullifying a federal law or order.” A State thereby declares itself alone as “The Supreme Court of our Supreme Court of the United States” (SCOTUS), superior to the other 49 States AND the contract terms our State (and those 49 States) pledged on our state honor to accept and defend against all foes, foreign and domestic…our U.S. Constitution is that contract. Fifty States swore allegiance to it, not 49.

Such a State acts with no legal, historical, or moral merit to that claim, which is why EVERY state “NULLIFICATION LAW” to date was voided, and will ALWAYS be voided.

Nullification of a federal law by any State is for some reason considered a state right by misguided tenth amendment advocates as one way to interpose, but it is entirely unconstitutional, has been ruled unconstitutional EVERY time, consistently, over 200 years, yet every 20 or 30 years a new generation reads the 10th Amendment in a vacuum, creating a new “State Sovereignty Nullification Law” movement, shaming THEIR state forefathers who entered and swore an oath to defend the sacred contract that created The UNITED STATES of America. Surely our own State legislators swear the same oath as our forefathers to protect and defend that same U.S. Constitution when elected.

So state nullification laws expose, in that State alone, issues of honor and character of a current generation that dishonors only their own State’s prior generations whose sworn oath is what is being nullified by the very posterity their forefathers sacrificed all for their liberty. “United” States requires “every” State, or we are in chaos, a “house divided against itself” which we know, cannot stand. One State cannot dictate to 49 others, which is what a single State does with a nullification law, which voids the will of 49 other States who continue to honor their state contract signed by their forefathers.

I regret I may embarrass many friends, including State legislators over 28 States I personally counseled, and several governors. Many are sadly misguided, a few hubris overloaded lovers of nullification laws, which breach the contract every State agreed upon…the U.S. Constitution.

Too many were misguided by establishment attorneys (none hailed Roberts’ embedded jewels) and second hand unverified misinformation, sadly, apparently, since it was advocated by Tenth Amendment Centers in their State and the national “Tenth Amendment Center” in California. Again, Mark Twain says it best.

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” –Autobiography of Mark Twain

“TenthAmendmentCenter.com” in California still today operates from the founder’s home, who remains a full time audio visual salesman, with a former sports writer and a friend, none having a degree or formal education in the Constitution, but all very skilled in the art of recruiting cash donations by riding waves of outrage at our Federal Government.

“Nullification is our Right,” the primary fuel for “TenthAmendmentCenter.com” and other “Tenthers” groups in most States, is now joined by their new cries FROM THE SAME Tenth Amendment Centers to abandon U.S. currency and use “Bitcoin” instead, in order to drive “The Fed” to its knees. They have yet to set the example however.

Tragically the same State legislators buying and reselling their “nullification is our right” arguments are influenced by people they have not vetted, but quote them like they were James Madison or Thomas Jefferson.

Every few decades over 200 years now, state hubris selects one amendment (10th) to be superior over all other amendments, to hold its breath and stomp its feet in righteous anger in declaring “We are a SOVEREIGN STATE with tenth amendment rights” so our State hereby recalls and assumes the “rights” we voluntarily delegated and surrendered in trust to our SCOTUS, to decide what laws are legal, and our State decides we oppose this particular law, so we just void it via a “State Nullification Law.”

States can “JUST SAY NO” to any federal law we do not agree with and declare it void?

United States created the Federal Government when every State signed a CONTRACT with terms and conditions binding on EVERY STATE, and their posterity, so can one State just BREACH THIS CONTRACT (our American Constitution) to unilaterally change that contract to gain control of the creation of the citizens of the 50 States?

If that can happen, any one State could create chaos for the other 49, at any time.

Can any one State decide to occasionally assume authority over SCOTUS, the Supreme Court? If so, any one State could undermine any court decision, usurping the authority invested by all 50 States. How would that not be tyranny to the 49 other States?

Any one State would then become a self-appointed, nonelected, super Supreme Court over The Supreme Court empowered by our Constitution. That one State contracted as our final authority, The Supreme Court, on the honor of the State now breaching their own contract.

Let’s carry that misguided thinking to a logical conclusion.

If a State can nullify federal laws, a city can nullify state laws…and a neighborhood or district can nullify city laws, until we have anarchy by undermining and breaching contracts we agreed on our state sovereign honor to abide by when we signed up.

How many cities, counties, communities in YOUR STATE are sovereign? How many can overrule YOUR State’s supreme court when they dislike a law or ruling?

Various Tenth Amendment Centers operate on sincere raw emotions of frustrated Patriots to push “nullification rights.”  but the truth is very clear, contradicting and incontrovertible. Every “State Nullification Law” has been ruled illegal, without exception, because States voluntarily contracted those rights to “OUR” SCOTUS in trust, many obvious unresolved authority issues resolved by the U.S. Civil War in 1861-1865.

Tenth amendment “rights” are not superior or inferior to any other “rights” in our Bill of Rights, where First, Second and 14th Amendments protect citizens just like our 10th Amendment.

Tenth amendment “nullification rights” did not fly when America finally got serious about ALL citizens rights and abolished racial segregation laws denying equal rights and opportunities to blacks, simply over their skin color.

Ten Southern States enacted nullification laws to preserve racial discrimination, and all 10 were rightly voided by SCOTUS, so tenth amendment rights are not superior or inferior to other amendments, but ALL function in proper balance…the American way.

States voluntarily surrendered those “nullification rights” to the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Branches, respectively, when States voluntarily formed the United States of America, in a signed CONTRACT.
State nullification laws are nothing more than an illegal breach of contract, as the contract every State signed, The U.S. Constitution does not give any one State the authority to declare void any law by duly elected Congress created by that contract.

Every State CONTRACTED their authority to nullify federal laws via the U.S. Constitution to the Supreme Court, who has ruled many times, consistently, that one State cannot occasionally exercise authority to simply NULLIFY by state law any federal law duly enacted by Congress, or opinion rendered by SCOTUS, or legal Executive order by POTUS or assigns.

So, effectively, States did create the Federal Government, by CONTRACTING certain states rights permanently in order to empower federal government.

NULLIFICATION RIGHTS were given in trust to the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Branches which check and balance each other…this was the will of “We the People,” confirmed by the Civil War.

State nullification proponents may disagree by misinformation. They point to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, in which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison asserted a State’s right to nullify the “Alien and Sedition Acts.”

Jefferson and Madison demanded the States have the final authority because the Constitution did not define an ultimate authority on such constitutional matters.

Jefferson advocated NULLIFICATION, while Madison advocated INTERPOSITION, stating in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, written by James Madison, which stated:

“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.” –James Madison.

By this statement, James Madison asserted that the States are “duty bound to interpose” to prevent the harm that would result from a “deliberate, palpable, and dangerous” unconstitutional action by the Federal Government. Madison did not specify the procedural legal details or process of how this interposition would be enacted or what result it would have.

Chief Justice Roberts affirmed Madison’s Interposition in his 2012 opinion.

The Virginia General Assembly passed Madison’s Report of 1800. It acknowledged that States can declare federal laws unconstitutional, but the declaration would have no legal effect unless the courts agreed. Madison himself wrote:

State “declarations…are expressions of opinion, (intended only for) exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect.”

In 1803 via Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall defined that ultimate authority clearly. He wrote: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Since then, instead of 50 individual state courts ruling regarding constitutionality, we have one Supreme Court establishing one ruling for the entire nation. No State has “unlimited sovereignty” over any federal branch of government.

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote “limited Constitution…can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

James Madison actually shared that view. He wrote “(I)ndependent tribunals…will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.”

Since then, “State Nullification Laws” have failed EVERY time by any State.

In 1832, South Carolina passed a “Nullification Law” to nullify two new national tariffs which hurt their economy. President Andrew Jackson proclaimed that nullification to be treason; Congress authorized Jackson to send troops, but Congress also quickly acted to drastically lower the new tax to a level the State deemed proper, so South Carolina repealed their Nullification Act and war was avoided. The process of resisting by South Carolina brought about relief sought, but their Nullification Law did not stand.

Misguided tenth amendment advocates applaud this as a victory for nullification law, when it was a draw or moral victory in a game of chicken long before cars were invented. They won fair treatment in Congress by willingness to repeal their Nullification Law.

Madison published “Notes on Nullification” in 1834. Madison was clear when he wrote that “an individual State cannot unilaterally invalidate a federal law. That process requires collective action by the States.”

Similarly, Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions had described nullification as an act by “the several States” that formed the Constitution. State NULLIFICATION laws were never a unilateral state “right” in the minds of Jefferson or Madison.

Further, seven States rejected resolutions similar to Virginia’s and Kentucky’s in 1798.

Six States passed alternate resolutions that constitutionality was for federal courts to decide; four States took no action. No other State supported Virginia or Kentucky.

Nullification can be achieved legally, but only by the contract terms all States swore oaths to support and defend…when two-thirds of all States agree in unity, they can amend the contract and have done so 12 times since 1900 with 12 Constitutional Amendments.

In 1842 SCOTUS rejected Pennsylvania’s attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842). That case was heard on the merits.

In 1859, the Supreme Court rejected Nullification in Ableman v. Booth.

Booth had frustrated recapture of a slave in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed on the merits and reinstated the conviction.

In 1958, after 10 Southern States refused to integrate their schools as ordered by Brown v. Board of Education 1954, the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron held that “Nullification is not a constitutional doctrine…it is illegal defiance of constitutional authority.” State Nullification Law is a breach of contract with every one of the 49 States not joining in that Nullification Law, so it will always be ILLEGAL.

Now remember two-thirds of all States, agreeing in unity, can legally change anything in our CONTRACT (Constitution) we choose to change, including NULLIFICATION of any law…examples are Prohibition repeal, Women’s voting rights, popular election of senators rather than having State legislators appoint senators to represent their State. These are from terms of the contract every State agreed upon and signed on our honor.

SCOTUS explicitly rejected nullification in the case of Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). Arkansas had passed several laws in an effort to prevent the integration of its schools. The Supreme Court, in its only opinion to be signed by all nine justices, held that state governments had no power to nullify the Brown decision. The Supreme Court held that the Brown decision and its implementation “can neither be nullified openly and directly by State legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation whether attempted ‘ingeniously or ingenuously.’”

Thus, Cooper v. Aaron directly held that States may not nullify federal law, a case CERTAINLY decided on its merits.

If state and local governments could NULLIFY federal law, public schools segregation would still be legal, if nullification were legal. Virginia would have continued its ban on inter-racial marriages, Texas might still jail homosexuals for consensual sex under Texas former sodomy laws, and “constructive gun bans” would remain in effect in Chicago and elsewhere, in violations of First, Second and 14th Amendments.

Sovereign states can produce tyranny as well as our federal government. Both state and federal tyranny must be monitored with the proper checks and balances EVERY STATE agreed on…SCOTUS alone.

Nullification law is actual “secession from the Union” via breach of sacred contract that nullifying State swore their sacred oaths to support and defend over 222 years now.

Nullification is where tenth amendment advocates unknowingly oppose our Constitution, although with patriot intent and heart…I was one myself for many years as The Problem and not The Proof I advocate daily now.
If a State deems a federal law or Executive order to be unconstitutional, what is the proper process to resist, as we NOW know it is not NULLIFICATION?

Because the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, the remedy has always been before 2012, a federal court lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the suspect federal regulation or statute. States were forced to play offense, bearing the burden of proof.

That has now changed with my discovery of the Trojan Horse cleverly embedded in the 2012 opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts in the “Obamacare Decision” via National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.567, 2012.