|  | The following are two Statements of Facts:Appendix A: The Presentation to the Public - A Statement of FactsNote: These petitions and reference  materials will be available on the Mobius Strip Press website for all  Constitutional warriors to reuse or modify as one would deem necessary. These  are provided as samples of how to address and engage public servants.There are two statements below. The  first is a short “abridged” statement for those city council or public meetings  that only allow a minute or two. The second is the full statement of facts. Introductions  and impressions are important. They help set the tone and demeanor of those  receiving the message. Therefore, the list directly below is simple examples of  how one can begin and set the tone of their presentation. Insert an appropriate  greeting such as:
 
        Good evening honorable members of  the City Council of <City Name>, and the esteemed citizens of this fine  city,Good  afternoon <state title and name (i.e. Sherriff Adams)>, 
          The Abridged PresentationLet me apologize now, for those here who  are offended by my assertion to all present, that you are sitting here <time  of day (i.e. today or tonight) in ignorance. There are two sides to ignorance. First  and foremost, ignorance is bliss and secondly, in the eyes of the law,  ignorance is no excuse. However, I am going to prove to you that deep down you  are not ignorant, you have been lulled into a sleep of apathy towards what I  will call little (r) republicanism.Let me attempt to explain by first  asking you these questions:
 Question  1: Who here knows the significance of  President’s Madison, Monroe, and Jackson’s veto’s of highway bills to Federal  Government today?
 Question  2: Who here understands the  Constitutional significance that Thomas Jefferson argued in the Kentucky  Resolution and Madison argued in the Virginia Resolution and what nullification  means?
 Question  3: Who here understands the Article V  process and why the Tenth Amendment was inserted into the Bill of Rights in  1789?
 Question  4: Who understands why the States are  the founders and what was testified and how they interpreted the Constitution  in their ratification debates is the Constitutional definition within the  context of the “contract” that the States agreed to and is legally binding?
 Question  5: Who here understands the damage  that occurred to our Constitutional Republic when Chief Justice Marshall ruled  in the following cases of Marbury v Madison, Fletcher v Peck, Sturges v.  Crowninshield, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v.  Virginia, or Gibbons v. Ogden?
 Question  6: Who here understands how in spite  of questions 1-4 the Federal government now has roles, responsibilities, and  powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution nor have they been amended  to the Constitution?
 Question  7: Who here understands that question  5 was the beginning of Federal usurpation of roles, responsibilities, and  powers?
 In a nutshell, everyone here probably  remembers learning about the Bill of Rights as Amendments to the Constitution,  but who remembers why between 1791 and 1803 that there were three amendments  suggested to the Constitution and two were ratified relatively quickly and the  third was not ratified until 1992? The why, is not because of the intents of  the amendments, but the fact that the accepted process to make any changes to  the Constitution must be done through the Article V process.
 Therefore, if one would read the veto’s  asked about in question one, everyone here would come to the same conclusion  and ask the same question? If Madison, Monroe, and Jackson insisted that you  had to amend the Constitution to create a Department of Transportation, then  how is it that a Department of Transportation exists today without an  Amendment? Remember it was Madison who wrote the Constitution, so I believe we  can all rest assured that he knew what he was talking about.
 Who here thinks that when the States  convened the Constitutional Convention that they gave the Federal government  all powers in all things. Anyone who has learned even a cursory level of our  Revolutionary War and the founding moments of this nation, there is no way the  framers suggested that the Federal government be given unlimited powers. In  understanding Constitutional government it is the Constitution that gives a  government its powers and limits it to those powers as we have all learned this  to some degree. The only way the Federal government has been able to grow to  this degree has been by blatantly violating the Constitution and I am prepared  to prove this to the extreme degree if necessary to call upon you to act.
 Since my time is limited, let me  conclude with this:
 If this information has caused you to  think, if somehow these questions have raised your interest, and you too find  that you were ignorant on these issues as I was, then I will first assert that  the Constitution is bleeding and it is almost useless. We all have blood on our  hands as we all see our Federal government quickly approaching a point of  discarding the Constitution so that they can continue to use the IRS to root  out their political enemies, use the NSA to continue to spy on law abiding  citizens, continue to use drones here in America, and continue to take our  liberties. We all have blood on our hands because we are all under oaths as  citizens and some here are under the oath of office. Both the citizen’s oath  and all oath’s of office state that we will agree to defend and protect the  Constitution. So I will ask a few more questions:
 1. What or how have you defended or  protected the Constitution recently? There is only one thing that you and I can  do that will protect and defend the Constitution, but I am out of time now.
 2. My final question is this, I  respectfully request that I be given a chance to address this body in full so  you can learn what is considered as the “Statement of Facts” and what you can  do to help live up to your oath of office and as citizens of this once great  Republic.
 Thank you!
 May I continue for 15 minutes or can I  schedule for the next meeting 15 minutes of allotted time to present the  Statement of Facts?
 The Full Presentation
      I appreciate you(r) allocating this time  for me to plead to you and to take a stand for us, your constituents, as a  patriot, and as one who has pledged an oath of office, and even to all citizens  who are accountable to the implied oath of citizenship. Let me preface my statement with the  fact that every citizen is accountable to the oath of citizenship and has a  personal, ethical, and moral obligation to this oath. As you are aware of, or  should be aware of, the first thing all citizens and public servants swear to  is that they will “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  Unfortunately too many people today do not understand the significance and  importance their role plays in our representative Republic, which yes, even you  as a citizen and local public servant are integral in the checks and balances  of our government. Therefore, if one considers the recent acts of Federal  tyranny such as:
 
        The  IRS intimidation The  silencing of persons and political organizationsNSA  spying on AmericansThe  Department of Justice (DOJ) spying on journalists DOJ  violating gun laws for political purposesThe  State Department reducing security in Libya and placing the nations Ambassador  at risk and not responding to their cries for security and help that resulted  in four deathsViolation  of contract laws for political purposesViolating  the Uniformity Clause with bailouts to banks, corporations, and industriesPassing  a Defense funding authorization that included the ability to detain US citizens  indefinitely by a military force.The  deployment of drones in the United States Listed above are clearly acts of tyranny  that are considered common knowledge. Therefore, if one does not understand  representative government, there is a specific reason why both the citizens and  all public servants and representatives take an oath. This oath first has the  aforementioned swear to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United  States” and that is because the nature of man engaging in energies of  government tend to accumulate and centralize powers and then tyranny and  despotism prevail, which is why James Madison said: “If men were angels, no government would  be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal  controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government, which is to  be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must  first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place  oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the  primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the  necessity of auxiliary precautions.” This is why the framers placed checks and  balances both horizontally within the Federal government and vertically amongst  the governed by way of the States.
 That said, the information I am going to  present is not only accurate, this information is irrefutable. I have little  doubt that this may be the first time you have received this information to  this degree of detail. However, as one who serves in an official capacity of  public service, this commitment of your oath becomes a professional obligation  in addition to the obligation of citizenship.
 To the average citizen, it appears we  have governed the Republic for over a century, without requiring the States to  have to intervene on behalf of the citizens and the Republic. I am here to  testify to you that this tranquil governance has been a façade and that the  Republic is now in a greater peril than those threats that drove us to either  World War. As our national debt continues to rise, our general government  unconstitutionally assumes more roles, responsibilities, and powers (RRP’s),  and as our liberties continue to fall by the wayside – the time for the  Republic to act is now, before the Republic and the Constitution is discarded  from a sundry of Constitutional hazards.
 The issue at hand is one of contract,  authority, and responsibility. The Constitution is the “contract” the States  created to empower the general government with limited and defined RRP’s known as  enumerations of powers. The “authority and responsibility” based upon the  “contract is exclusively held by the States, with the only exception given to  the general government on few limited and defined powers. Therefore, the States  are cognizant and possess the authority to interpose and contain the general  government within the Constitutional boundaries, before the general government  decimates the good and honorable standing of our union and discards our  Constitution for political expediency. Consequently, for over a century  political servants have violated their oaths of office and have served  ideologies and agendas, both of which are unconstitutional in this Republic. Therefore,  as a representative Republic, we only have one course of action and to substantiate  this fact the packet of documentation and reference materials I will provide  you; should not only be a sobering wakeup call, but an assertion for you as  public servant in the Republic to fulfill your oath and duty.
 One does not need to be a historian to  know that America fought the Revolutionary War over the “Intolerable Acts” of  the British Crown and Parliament, which included taxation without  representation, warrantless searches, confiscation of property, or imprisonment  without habeas corpus, and other acts of tyranny. Therefore, after the  Revolutionary War, the framers were not only distrustful of centralizing powers  in a central government again; they would not accept unchecked powers of a  general government. This is why the framers instilled the aforementioned checks  and balances, which included a full check on the Federal government by the  States. One check was Article V in the Constitution to restrain the assumption  of new RRP’s, which required THREE-FOURTHS of the States to approve.
 Therefore, as the Constitution was being  ratified by each State, these strict limitations were not only mentioned, they  were spelled out and defined. Even though the general government was clearly constrained  to the enumerated powers, the States still demanded the insertion of the Bill  of Rights. The Bill of Rights ensures that a clear, concise, and succinct  restraint was defined, which was the intent of the tenth amendment. Thus, stating  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor  prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to  the people.”
 To be clear, this assertion by some  would call this a perspective of “original intent.” However, this cannot be  construed as “original intent” because original intent would not possess any  force of contract. Original intent, as attested by progressives, marginalizes  the hardened contract between the States who delegate limited powers to the  general government. Furthermore, original intent does not define the contractual  understandings and agreed definitions which were clearly stated by each State  in the ratification process of the Constitution. Bear in mind the ratification  debates were a contractually binding process where the States elucidated the  definition of each line on the Constitution to ensure there were no  misconceptions or construed differences that would allow the general government  to creep into a supremacy role in all things. Consequently, the Constitution  was a compact with force given to the States and not a noble intent, which  surrenders all powers to a general government.
 Clearly, the Constitutional boundaries  were well defined, which is why the Bill of Rights were “Amendments” to the  Constitution; thus, following the codified process set forth in Article V of  the Constitution. The amendment process was not a guideline, nor was it an  option. This is why in 1794 and 1803, two more Amendments were proposed and  ratified after the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. One of which simply  changed the process of electing the President. This alone testifies to the  rigidity of this contract as well as the common perception of these strict  limitations placed on the Federal government. There was no allowance for the  Federal government to assume any new roles, responsibilities, or powers without  the States consent. Bottom line, the States are the owners of this contract and  they are still the owners today.
 Now let me clarify these limitations and  the role of the States in oversight of the Federal government. The first time  an egregious violation of the Constitution occurred was the Alien and Sedition  Acts of 1798, which is when free speech was restricted, and both Virginia and  Kentucky nullified these acts as unconstitutional and had no force in the  States of Virginia and Kentucky. These resolutions were written by Thomas  Jefferson and James Madison and are a part of your informational packet.
 In March of 1817, when Congress brought to  President James Madison a Bill titled “An act to set apart and pledge certain  funds for internal improvements,” Madison vetoed it. This is also in your  packet informational packet. This Bill was to create a subset of what one can  call the Department of Transportation for their time. In Madison’s veto, he  admonished Congress that if they wanted to create a role, responsibility, or  power such as this, they had to amend the Constitution. In his admonishment,  President Madison also pointed out the fact that they could not use the General  Welfare Clause, the Commerce Clause, the Necessary or Proper Clause or the  Supremacy Clause to assume this power. For these clauses were strictly confined  to the enumerated powers in the Constitution only, and not grants of power or  authority for the general government to whimsically usurp more power. You must  read this message for yourself, to see Madison state in his own words that the  Federal government cannot create a Department of Transportation without  Amending the Constitution PERIOD.
 Consequently, as the framers passed away  many noble and nefarious men have been working hard to help the Federal  government expand its roles, responsibilities, and powers as they saw fit  outside the boundaries of the Constitution. In other words, bypassing and  undermining the Constitution. In a duplicitous and underhanded effort to self-aggrandize  their role, the Supreme Court began opening their range of powers. In so doing,  they also unconstitutionally granted more powers to the Legislative and  Executive branches bypassing the Article V process. If one can submit any  evidence that in any point in time three-fourths of the States acquiesced to  any notion granting the Federal government all powers necessary that they  choose to take on then I have simply wasted your time. However, I know no such  evidence exists and though the States have failed to coalesce to interpose,  retard and undo these almost two centuries of usurpations. If the State fails  to do so now, then let the record state that the loss of liberties, life and our  Constitution will be on the heads of those citizens and public servants who  failed to honor their oath.
 What I am asserting to you in the  specific case of the Department of Transportation is that there is no amendment  granting the Federal government the power to lay taxes for the performance and  functions of the role, responsibility, and power in administering a Department  of Transportation. In addition, one will not find an Amendment granting the  Federal government the authority to lay taxes and to perform the functions of  the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health,  Education, Welfare, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Homeland Security,  and now Obamacare. Therefore, these roles, responsibilities, and powers are  unconstitutional and the only recourse for the Republic to address these and  correct these egregious violations of the Constitution is to convene a  Constitutional Convention and perform a Republic Review, wherein the States can  determine whether these roles should be granted to the Federal Government. If  so, then an Amendment must be made to the Constitution. If not, then the States  retain these powers, or the Republic can choose to grant one, some, or all of  these roles to a different polity altogether.
 With regard to the Supreme Court having  any power or authority to amend the Constitution via declaration or ruling,  this would be a direct conflict to the Article V process, and would require an  Amendment to this codified process. To be clear, the Judiciary Act of 1789 did  not grant the Supreme Court any power or allowance for the Supreme Court to  create or grant any new roles, responsibilities, or powers to the general  government. The framers and the States during the ratification process clearly  left the judiciary within the context of interpreting the contents of the 1) Constitution,  2) ratified Treaties, and 3) the founding documents (for intent). They were not  given the power or authority to “perceive,” “create,” or “legislate” new  powers. Sovereignty and supreme authority in amending and changing the  Constitution is solely left to the States. The allowance for a tribunal or  Supreme Court to wield this power would have been a direct threat to the established  representative government, which you are a part of in your current position.  Moreover, the framers and the States equally insisted on this during the  process of creating our Constitutional Republic. This restriction equally  applies to the Executive Branch and the office of the President who cannot  create new roles, responsibilities, and powers such as environmental, energy,  or commerce laws or regulations.
 My fellow citizens and servants, as  guardians of the Constitution, we must be cognizant that only the States possess  the power and authority vested in the Constitution to grant any new role,  responsibility, or power. Granting this power to the general government would  be destructive to the Republic, tantamount to empowering tyranny, or equal to  letting the fox rule the henhouse. Moreover, with this knowledge, one does not  have to be a Constitutional scholar to understand that today over two-thirds of  the Federal government functions are unconstitutional.
 This is why I am providing you with a  compiled list of relevant historical documentation and reference materials that  not only support these assertions, but profoundly layout the fact that for  almost two centuries the Federal government has been usurping the powers of the  States. The sad fact is that over this period of a century the States and the  local representatives were either unaware of the growing Constitutional crisis  or they have simply neglected their roles, responsibilities, and powers of  oversight. In some cases the documentation you are receiving is only an  overview or summation of many of the documents such as the ratification  debates. This is because the ratification debates are so voluminous that only  highlights or abridged summations are inserted, and that deeper examination is  recommended if one is skeptical of the assertion that the States created a  contract for their general government to be restrained from increasing the  scope and capacity of their roles, responsibilities, or powers.
 As fellow citizens and servants alike,  we are all duty bound to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United  States.” Therefore, if one examines the magnitude and extent of violations and  the onerous financial burden the Federal government is recklessly placing upon  the Republic, we have no other choice then to coalesce the States again into a  Convention and either make these unconstitutional functions Constitutional or  we must order the Federal government to cease and desist. This Convention can  be accomplished securely, quickly, and can be cost effective by the  implementation of modern and secure technology. This prodigious responsibility  cannot be delegated or surrendered, or history will show that this generation  failed the greatest Republic ever established, as we either go bankrupt or  allow the “limited and defined” Federal government to overpower the Republic.  In essence, allowing the Federal government to kill the perpetual union of the  States and our Constitution as we know it.
 As a Constitutional Republic, the only  thing that can save the Republic, and restore individual liberty and  sovereignty to the people is the Republic. We the People, united at each State  possess the whole power of the government to end the tyranny. Each day that  goes by where the general government goes unchecked by the energies and power  of the Republic, this same general government will continue to usurp more of  the Republic’s power and energy, until the Republic finally capitulates.  Therefore, our goal must be myopic. You do not need to contribute to an  election fund or a fund of one who is not asserting this solution to the  problem (for they are a part of the problem), nor do you need to spend any more  time on this matter in Washington D.C., unless you have a reasonable doubt or  concern to the facts present here at this time. If you have any concerns, then  I implore you to read these documents I have provided and referenced. There can  be only one reasonable conclusion and that is why I am here today.
 I am here to call upon you to uphold  your oath of office and sign this petition that calls upon our State  Legislatures to convene a Convention with the union of States. I am appealing  to your good reason, civil responsibility, and honor to stand up at this  historical moment of time, to ignite the restoration of power back to our  Constitutional Republic, and to protect and defend the Constitution of the  United States. Let your voice be counted as one for individual liberty and  sovereignty and let the annals of history record this prodigious movement with  you unequivocally on the record as a defender of liberty and the Constitution.
 Thank you and God bless the Republic!  |