Dedicated to the
Sovereignty of
Missourians
|
|
|
Dedicated to the
|
|
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Click HERE for SB 727 - Omnibus Education Disaster
|
|||||
|
The Missouri Constitution on the Role of Government and Limits on Legislative Powers Just a few clauses in the Missouri Constitution gives you 90% of the tools you need to keep your elected officials in check...
|
|||||
|
Click HERE to Learn About Memebers of the Missouri Realtors Association need to read this. -
Federal Judge Rules Against SAPA A federal judge has ruled the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act unconstitutional. "One of the worst judicial opinions I've ever reviewed in the modern era."
Watch Judge Napolitano on Austin Petersen's show here. -
|
SAPA
Click here for March 7, 2023 Opinion
|
||||
|
County by County Results of Amendment 3 -
- Is it time for a National Divorce (secession)? September 8, 2022 The differences between Americans and states are more apparent than they have been for many generations, resulting in anomosity and sometimes violence. We seem to have irreconcilable differences. Would we have a more peaceful existence with more political distance?
Here are some good articles discussing the concept: It's Time for a National Divorce - It’s Beyond Time for a National Divorce - Bigness Is Badness: The Case for a National Divorce - The Economics of National Divorce - - Constitutional Limits on Legislative Power September 1, 2022 About the tax credits Governor Parson is asking for in the special session of the legislature: Note that the Missouri Constitution prohibits them, if applied properly. Article III of the Missouri Constitution enumerates legislative powers and limits on those powers. III Section 38(a). The general assembly shall have no power to grant public money or property, or lend or authorize the lending of public credit, to any private person, association or corporation, excepting aid in public calamity, and general laws providing for pensions for the blind, for old age assistance, for aid to dependent or crippled children or the blind, for direct relief, for adjusted compensation, bonus or rehabilitation for discharged members of the armed services of the United States who were bona fide residents of this state during their service, and for the rehabilitation of other persons. Money or property may also be received from the United States and be redistributed together with public money of this state for any public purpose designated by the United States.
III Section 39. Limitation of power of general assembly. — The general assembly shall not have power: (1) To give or lend or to authorize the giving or lending of the credit of the state in aid or to any person, association, municipal or other corporation; (2) To pledge the credit of the state for the payment of the liabilities, present or prospective, of any individual, association, municipal or other corporation; (3) To grant or to authorize any county or municipal authority to grant any extra compensation, fee or allowance to a public officer, agent, servant or contractor after service has been rendered or a contract has been entered into and performed in whole or in part; (4) To pay or to authorize the payment of any claim against the state or any county or municipal corporation of the state under any agreement or contract made without express authority of law; (5) To release or extinguish or to authorize the releasing or extinguishing, in whole or in part, without consideration, the indebtedness, liability or obligation of any corporation or individual due this state or any county or municipal corporation; (6) To make any appropriation of money for the payment, or on account of or in recognition of any claims audited or that may hereafter be audited by virtue of an act entitled "An Act to Audit and Adjust the War Debts of the State," approved March 19, 1874, or any act of a similar nature, until the claim so audited shall have been presented to and paid by the government of the United States to this state; (7) To act, when convened in extra session by the governor, upon subjects other than those specially designated in the proclamation calling said session or recommended by special message to the general assembly after the convening of an extra session; (8) To remove the seat of government from the City of Jefferson; (9) Except as otherwise provided in section 39(b), section 39(c), section 39(e) or section 39(f) of this article, to authorize lotteries or gift enterprises for any purpose, and shall enact laws to prohibit the sale of lottery or gift enterprise tickets, or tickets in any scheme in the nature of a lottery; except that, nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent or prohibit citizens of this state from participating in games or contests of skill or chance where no consideration is required to be given for the privilege or opportunity of participating or for receiving the award or prize and the term "lottery or gift enterprise" shall mean only those games or contests whereby money or something of value is exchanged directly for the ticket or chance to participate in the game or contest. The general assembly may, by law, provide standards and conditions to regulate or guarantee the awarding of prizes provided for in such games or contests under the provision of this subdivision; (10) To impose a use or sales tax upon the use, purchase or acquisition of property paid for out of the funds of any county or other political subdivision.
Vaccine Mandate Statute Link. Chapter 167.181 RSMo lists school attendance vaccine madates AND exemptions. In spite of all the hype you hear, your child DOES NOT have to be vaccinated to attend school. In Missouri, there are TWO exemption allowed for in statute. (See 167.181 RSMo, below.) One is the medical exemption and the other is a religious exemption. And regardless of what they try to tell you, ALL you have to do to secure the religious exemption is "object in writing" to the school administrator. You do not have to sign any other documents, receive counseling from a Health Department nurse or jump through any other hoops. Note the yellow highlighted section, below. Note that the religious believe is your personal belief, regardless of what your church teaches or even if you are not a member of any church. Print this statute and take it to your school when you seek the exemption. If they don't accept a simple objection in writing, call your state rep or senator -- it's their job to protect you from oppressive government actors.
167.181.1 The department of health and senior services, after consultation with the department of elementary and secondary education, shall promulgate rules and regulations governing the immunization against poliomyelitis, rubella, rubeola, mumps, tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, and hepatitis B, to be required of children attending public, private, parochial or parish schools. Such rules and regulations may modify the immunizations that are required of children in this subsection. The immunizations required and the manner and frequency of their administration shall conform to recognized standards of medical practice. The department of health and senior services shall supervise and secure the enforcement of the required immunization program. 2. It is unlawful for any student to attend school unless he has been immunized as required under the rules and regulations of the department of health and senior services, and can provide satisfactory evidence of such immunization; except that if he produces satisfactory evidence of having begun the process of immunization, he may continue to attend school as long as the immunization process is being accomplished in the prescribed manner. It is unlawful for any parent or guardian to refuse or neglect to have his child immunized as required by this section, unless the child is properly exempted. 3. This section shall not apply to any child if one parent or guardian objects in writing to his school administrator against the immunization of the child, because of religious beliefs or medical contraindications. In cases where any such objection is for reasons of medical contraindications, a statement from a duly licensed physician must also be provided to the school administrator. 4. Each school superintendent, whether of a public, private, parochial or parish school, shall cause to be prepared a record showing the immunization status of every child enrolled in or attending a school under his jurisdiction. The name of any parent or guardian who neglects or refuses to permit a nonexempted child to be immunized against diseases as required by the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be reported by the school superintendent to the department of health and senior services. 5. The immunization required may be done by any duly licensed physician or by someone under his direction. If the parent or guardian is unable to pay, the child shall be immunized at public expense by a physician or nurse at or from the county, district, city public health center or a school nurse or by a nurse or physician in the private office or clinic of the child's personal physician with the costs of immunization paid through the state Medicaid program, private insurance or in a manner to be determined by the department of health and senior services subject to state and federal appropriations, and after consultation with the school superintendent and the advisory committee established in section 192.630. When a child receives his or her immunization, the treating physician may also administer the appropriate fluoride treatment to the child's teeth. 6. Funds for the administration of this section and for the purchase of vaccines for children of families unable to afford them shall be appropriated to the department of health and senior services from general revenue or from federal funds if available. 7. No rule or portion of a rule promulgated under the authority of this section shall become effective unless it has been promulgated pursuant to the provisions of chapter 536. Any rule or portion of a rule, as that term is defined in section 536.010, that is created under the authority delegated in this section shall become effective only if it complies with and is subject to all of the provisions of chapter 536 and, if applicable, section 536.028. This section and chapter 536 are nonseverable and if any of the powers vested with the general assembly pursuant to chapter 536 to review, to delay the effective date or to disapprove and annul a rule are subsequently held unconstitutional, then the grant of rulemaking authority and any rule proposed or adopted after August 28, 2001, shall be invalid and void.
|
Virtually every law in American is made by Concurrent Majority, other than ratifying amendments to state constitution. The U.S. Constitution is not ratified by a popular vote -- it is ratified by a concurrent majority consensus of the states. Every legislature is made up of representatives of citizens from districts from a broad geographic area and it takes a consensus of those areas to pass a bill. Even the president is selected by concurrent majority – that's what the Electoral College is. SJR 28 would require a concurrent majority to amend the Missouri Constitution. It requires two conditions be met for ratification: 1) A statewide majority popular vote, just as we have now, and 2) A majority popular vote in more than half the state House districts. This requirement applies to initiative, legislative, and convention proposed amendments (or entire constitution in the case of a convention).
RESOURCES Brochure Explaining Concurrent Majority Ratification Link to Senate Bill 28 text:: Color coded map and county breakdown of the Amendment 3 vote: https://www.mofirst.org/issues/ratification/2022-Amendment-3-County-Results.pdf Definition and American History of Concurrent Majority: https://www.mofirst.org/issues/ratification/The-Concurrent-Majority-Principle.pdf Interactive database of all ballot measures since 1910: https://www.libertytools.org/BillTracking/MO-Ballot-History.php List of other state's ratification requirements: https://www.mofirst.org/issues/ratification/State-Ratification-Process.pdf Summary of poll weighing Missourians' feelings about changing IP: https://www.mofirst.org/issues/ratification/American-Strategies-Poll.pdf |
||||
Majority Floor Leader, Dean Plocher and Rep. Rudy Veit April 14, 2022 Dean Plocher's "target" was Rep. Suzie Pollock, but all the Republicans -- along with the integrity of the House -- are collateral damage. In the 2 1/2 decades I've been active at the Missouri Capitol I've seen a lot of underhanded and deceitful schemes, but this tops them all for pettiness and deceit. The main lesson for us all is that the Rules of the House need to be changed so no one person has this much power. So, what happened? Watch what happened on the House floor.
<Click here to continue reading and see the video>
|
Download Executive Summary for HB 2009. Link to good Wiemann amendment. Cole County Court rules DHSS Covid actions unconstitutional
Read, from their own documetns, just how left AAP is in this PDF. Why does Dean Plocher further their agenda?
|
||||
Missouri Republicans are kowtowing to March 31, 2022 HB 2009 is a lasting pushback to Covid Tyranny Missouri House Republicans are allowing the ultra-leftist Healthcare Industrial Complex to drive their agenda, including with respect to the bills dealing with the Covid tyranny we've faced for the last two year. Leftist members of the Healthcare Industrial Complex, like the American Academy of Pediatrics have blocked or weakened the bills designed to prevent the tyrannical healthcare orders we've saw from 2020 to 2022. We must ask why Republicans are helping with this socialist agenda?
Send an email to these Republican reps, telling them that you support HB 2009 and want it to go to the floor for debate right away: https://www.libertytools.org/BillTracking/vote-members.php?Bill_Action_id=506&Vote=Present
|
|||||
06/10/2021 UPDATE <MORE>
How to Recall Officials in 3rd Class Cities 11/10/2020 77.650. Recall of elected officials — procedure — limitations. — 1. The holder of any elective office in a third class city may be removed by the qualified voters of such city by recall petition in accordance with the procedure set out in sections 77.650 to 77.660 subject to the following limitations: (1) The officer has held office for at least six months; (2) In the case of an office for a term of two years only, one recall petition may be filed during such term; (3) For a term of office more than two years, additional recall petitions may be filed but not less than six months later after voter disapproval of the last recall petition; (4) The recalled officer may not be a candidate to succeed himself at a special election held to fill the vacancy created by his recall, nor may he be appointed by the appointing authority to fill the vacancy. 2. A petition signed by voters entitled to vote for a successor to the incumbent sought to be removed, equal in number to at least twenty-five percent of the total number of registered voters in such city entitled to vote for a successor to the incumbent sought to be removed, demanding the recall of a person from elective office shall be filed with the county clerk which petition shall contain a statement of the reasons for which recall is sought which shall not be more than two hundred words in length. Such petition for recall shall be filed with the appropriate county clerk or election authority within sixty days after the date of the earliest signature on the petition. The reasons for recall are misconduct in office, incompetence or failure to perform duties prescribed by law. The signatures to the petition need not all be appended to one paper, but each signer shall add to his signature his place of residence, giving the street and number and the date signed. One of the signers of each such paper shall make oath before an officer competent to administer oaths that the statements therein made are true as he believes and that each signature to the paper appended is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be.
77.655. Recall petitions, examination and certification by county clerk — amended, when — duties of clerk and council. — Within ten days from the date of filing such petition, the county clerk of such third class city shall examine and from the voters' register ascertain whether or not said petition is signed by the requisite number of voters, and if necessary, the council shall allow him extra help for the purpose; and he shall attach to said petition his certificate, showing the result of said examination. If by the clerk's certificate the petition is shown to be insufficient, it may be amended within ten days from the date of said certificate. The clerk shall, within ten days after such amendment, make like examination of the amended petition, and if his certificate shall show the same to be insufficient, it shall be returned to the person filing the same, without prejudice, however, to the filing of a new petition to the same effect. If the petition shall be deemed to be sufficient, the clerk shall submit the same to the council without delay. If the petition shall be found to be sufficient, the council shall order the question to be submitted to the voters of the city.
77.660. Recall petition, election on, when, form of question — removal of official, when, vacancy created. — 1. A special election shall be held on the recall petition as soon as practicable and as may be determined by the election authority of the county. The question to be presented to the voters at such election shall be in substantially the following form:
2. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on the question at such election shall vote FOR the removal of such officer, a vacancy shall exist in such office. If a majority of the qualified electors voting on the question at such election shall vote AGAINST the removal of such officer, such officer shall continue to serve during the term for which elected.
|
|||||
|
Open Letter to the Missouri House of Representatives
To the House of Representatives, 568.045. 1. A person commits the offense of endangering the welfare of a child in the In existing statute, endangering the welfare of a child is, at a minimum, a class D felony.
Then there's the blackjack language Nick and General Laws wisely removed from 571.060 in HB 16. Similar language exists elsewhere in chapter 571. (2) "Blackjack", any instrument that is designed or adapted for the purpose of stunning or inflicting physical injury by striking a person, and which is readily capable of lethal use; There is a body of law that includes the martial arts weapon nunchucks in that definition. (Google it, some states are changing it, but people have been charged under their laws.) To make matters worse, chapter 571 has several references to federal law that we have no control over -- law which might evolve into who knows what. Passing HB 11 sets up Missourians to be made felons by unforeseen changes to such laws.
|
ACTION ITEM We may need to fight this when HB 11 goes to the Senate. Stand by... |
||||
|
Citizens are fighting back when the government ignores the Constitution! Click HERE to download the proposed DHSS permanent rule that mirrors temporary emergency rule from March 22, 2020 that gives the Department of Health and Senior Services incredible powers. Includes instructions for your comments. UPDATE! May 20, 2020: the DHSS has terminated the temporary emergency rule that was supposed to go until January 13, 2021. AND they have announced that they will be withdrawing the proposed rule at the end of the comment period. Click for the Termination Order.
Lawsuit: Citizens Sue County for Holding Closed Meetings Click here for Calzones v. Maries County Commission Documents Attorney General's Message to Local Governments About Open Meetings During the Pandemic 04/20/2020 UPDATE: Links to court documents: https://www.mofirst.org/lawsuits/Maries-County-Sunshine/Calzones-v-Maries-County-Commission.php Today, my wife and I sued our own county. Here's why: The fear of Covid 19 has resulted in unprecedented actions on all levels of government. The federal government is spending trillions of dollars they don't have. State governments have declared states of emergency that give their governors the sort of powers we criticize 3rd world leaders for using -- we even send troops into those countries to effect "regime change," and secure for those people "democracy." And all over Missouri local governments are ignoring some of the basic tenants of a republic -- the idea that the people are ultimately in control and that their representatives can only act in the the light of day (sunshine) in meetings open to the public where the People have an opportunity to exercise their 1st Amendment right to petition the government. All over Missouri, local governments are ignoring Chapter 610 of our state's revised statutes, the "Sunshine Law," and holding meetings closed to the public. Such is the case with the Maries County Commission. That would be bad enough under normal circumstances, but during the Covid 19 scare these county commissions and city councils are being courted by health department bureaucrats with tunnel vision. All the bureaucrats see is minimizing Covid 19 infections. They seem not to consider principles of liberty and economics and the Rule of Law. The results are local officials, who are usually good people doing a good job at what they were elected to do, WAY outside their wheelhouse. With the one-sided urging of health department bureaucrats, they have been passing ordinances and issuing orders that even 6 months ago we would have thought was the work of banana republic dictators. Maries County is a small county. We are all neighbors, and it's a hard thing to sue your neighbors. The fact is, though, Anne and I are not suing our neighbors, we are suing public officials FOR THE BENEFIT of our neighbors and our posterity. We are suing because we think it is every generation's job to keep the spirit of the Declaration of Independence alive. Our forefathers had this complaint about King George in the 4th Grievance of the Declaration: "He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures." It was the King's intent to thwart representative governance. Our forefathers thought that was important enough to go to war over. Anne and I think it is important enough to go to court over. Keep an eye out, I think you will be seeing a LOT of legal and political action to rein in officials who have lost their way or failed in their responsibility to support the Constitution. -- Ron Calzone |
ACTION ITEM Check to see if YOUR city, town, or county is complying with the Sunshine Open Meeting Law. |
|
URGENT! HB 2725 upends the foundations of our republic! (Suspends open meeting requirements.) 03/18/2020 UPDATE Due to overwhelming concern about closed meetings of government entities, HB 2725 was DOA as it went to the House floor today. Eighteen amendments were on the table, many of which would have made the bill acceptable, but there was no interest in compromise and the bill was not brought up. The General Assembly will likely pass the budget and then adjourn for the rest of the session.
March 17, 2020 The “Grievances” section of American Declaration of Independence is often overlooked, but it can be very useful in an effort to keep us from straying too far from the principles that made America good and great. That's especially true during traumatic times, when we may not be focused on the big picture or the long run. Our forefathers had this complaint about King George in the 4th Grievance: "He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures." It was the King's intent to thwart representative governance. Several of the other grievances deal with the same issue. This sort of destruction of the representation the American colonists expected was enough to ignite a war. Our forefathers died and suffered for several years in that war to secure the liberty we enjoy today. Their level of sacrifice makes the worst we have seen from COVID 19 look like child's play. The House Committee Substitute for HB 2725 is an insult to their sacrifice. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the insult is intentional. I think HB 2725 is a good-faith effort to deal with a highly unusual and emotionally charged situation with grave potential. It's an effort to make sure essential decisions can be made during a time when we should be minimizing social contact – a laudable goal. And HB 2725 even has potential to become something reasonable. |
ACTION ITEM Before 10 am Wednesday (tomorrow or today, depending when you're reading this), email AND call your Missouri state rep and tell him: Do not pass HB 2725 without fixing the constitutional problem and to put a sunset clause in the bill. |
|
2020 Bills gaining momentum! Follow the link, above, to learn how you can help RIGHT NOW. OK, SC, WV, and WY legislators have followed suit and filed their versions of the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act!
|
Principled Policy: CleanER MissouriThe ballot measure called "Clean Missouri" was a Constitutional mess, but the Republican solution violates some of the same principles and injects an additional problem or two.The Constitutional Approach to Clean Missouri February 10, 2020 CleanER Missouri Should Respect the Voters To anyone who cares about the letter and spirit of the Missouri Constitution, the 2018 ballot measure called “Clean Missouri” was a grave insult, but voters are about to be dealt a more grievous discourtesy. Republicans in the Missouri General Assembly are rightly concerned about the redistricting component of the 2018 constitutional amendment and are dead set on giving voters a chance to reverse it. Unfortunately, they learned too well from the cagey proponents of Clean Missouri. Like slick salesmen, they are calling their alternative “CleanER Missouri.” Sadly, CleanER Missouri is actually more despicable than Clean Missouri. The proponents of Clean Missouri baited voters with a new lobbyist gift limit of $5, a provision banning former legislators and their staff from lobbying for two years after leaving those jobs, a reduction on campaign contributions, and other sweeteners. Bait and Switch That bait was dangled so they could hook the voters with their real objective – a rather stupid new redistricting scheme that makes the whole state one murky political blob, rather than respect the distinctions that make communities vibrant, and affects who they choose to represent them. CleanER Missouri also baits voters. It uses a technically accurate ballot summary statement that is intentionally misleading. For instance, <click here to read the rest>
|
Guiding Principles:
"In order to assert our rights, acknowledge our duties, and proclaim the principles on which our government is founded, we declare: That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.” Article I Section 1. "No such proposed amendment shall contain more than one amended and revised article of this constitution, or one new article which shall not contain more than one subject and matters properly connected therewith." Art. VII § 2(b)
|
|
CLICK HERE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ACT INFO PAGE Missouri SAPA filed in 2019 -- Held up by Leadership Senator Eric Burlison: SB SB 367 Bad gun control bills moving in 2019 HB 188 (PDMP) --- FAILED HB 960 (Red Flag Lite) -- FAILED
|
|
Citizen sues Missouri legislature for not respecting the constitutional limits on their power. January 15, 2019 - Missouri Supreme Court heard oral arguments and is considering these cases. As of May 30, 2019, these cases are pending an opinion by the Missouri Supreme Court Jefferson City, MO, May 9, 2017 – Calzone v. Richardson Challenge to 2016 Senate Bill 638 for violating the Missouri Constitution's requirement that bills stick to their one original purpose. To see details about the case CLICK HERE.
Jefferson City, MO, May 19, 2017 – Calzone v. Richard Challenge to Senate Concurrent Resolution 4 (application to Congress for a constitutional convention) because the resolution is not being sent to the Governor for his consideration as required by the Missouri Constitution. To see details about the case CLICK HERE.
|
Missouri Constitution Article I, Section 1 explains who's in charge: |
|
Missouri's Citizen Activists Win Against Ethics Commission Attack Circuit Judge rules MEC broke the law in Calzone v. Missouri Ethics Commission Jefferson City, MO, September 26, 2016 – Nearly two years after a complaint was illegally filed against one of Missouri First's directors, Ron Calzone, a Cole County circuit judge has ruled that the Missouri Ethics Commission acted outside it's legal authority when it accepted and pursued the complaint filed by the Missouri Society of Governmental Consultants. The complaint alleged that Calzone was required by law to register and fill out reports the same way professional lobbyists do, even though he has never been compensated for his time spent as a citizen activist. The Missouri Society of Governmental Consultants is an association of professional lobbyists who are hired to promote the agenda of special interests. Over many years, quite a few citizen activists, like Calzone, have been very successful in defeating legislation that would undermine free-market principles and profit some of those lobbyists and their principals, even though the activists receive no compensation or spend money on law-makers. The Missouri Ethics Commission is a group of people appointed by the governor to enforce the laws pertaining to campaign committees and various types of lobbying, among other things. They have staff attorneys who decide what complaints to investigate and then, in administrative hearings closed to the public, try to convince their bosses who should be punished. At every turn in the case against Calzone, the complainants and/or Ethics Commission violated the law and rules pertaining to legal proceedings. In the end, a real judge in a real court of law, following the proper rules of civil procedure, ruled that the Ethics Commission was operating outside the law. . <click here to continue reading>
|
Article I, Section 8 Mo. Constitution: |
|
The Legislator Constitutional Integrity Score Card Just how good a job have your Missouri legislators done living up to their oath to “support the Missouri Constitution?” July 27, 2016 -- Jefferson City, MO Missouri First believes the starting point in a legislator evaluation is determining their commitment to adhering to the Constitution they took an oath to support. Such an evaluation can be done in a very “quantitative” way that removes most, if not all, of the subjectivity (opinion) from the process. Unfortunately, out the 194 representatives and senators currently in the Missouri General Assembly, only four produced scores that indicate a consistent commitment to the most basic of constitutional instructions about the legislative process. How did your rep and senator do? Check it out, here: <more>
|
Article III, Section 21 Mo. Constitution: Article III, Section 23 Mo. Constitution:
|
|
March 22, 2016 – Success! The Attorney General's Office Throws in the Towel The circuit court decision became final and the 10 day window for appeal has elapsed. The case is over. Although there will be no precedent setting appeals opinion, a precedent of sorts has, nonetheless, been set. One of the prime objectives of this lawsuit was to put an end, or at least strike a blow, to what's called "judicial severance." That's a troubling practice in which the courts allow the original portion of a bill to survive even though they found that the addition of amendments to that bill violated the constitutional prohibitions on changing its original purpose or adding multiple subjects. <more>
Cole County Court Upholds Constitution in Calzone v. Koster Jefferson City, MO, February 17, 2016 – After over 8 months of litigation, Cole County Daniel Green declared that the 2014 SB 672 was passed by the Missouri General Assembly using procedures that are forbidden in the state Constitution. Similar violations have become commonplace. This case paves the way for similar challenges to other unconstitutional bills in the future as other non-attorneys see that they can prevail. The Court grants Plaintiff's Petition and: 1. Declares that SB 672 violates article II, § 23, of the Missouri Constitution, cannont be severed under the facts of this case, and therefore SB 672 is unconstitutional in its entirety; 2. Permanently enjoins Defendants, and each of them, and all those in active concert or participation with them, from taking any action, including but not limited to the use of public funds, to implement or otherwise effectuate any provisions of SB 672; 3. Orders Defendants, and each of them, to rescind all actions taken to implement or otherwise effectuate any provisions of SB 672; and 4. Each party to bear their own costs. To read more about the case and access court documents <click here>.
|
Article III, Section 21 Mo. Constitution: Article III, Section 23 Mo. Constitution:
|
|
UPDATE: Ethics Commission Attack on Citizen Activists Here's the lates in Ethics Commission v. Calzone Jefferson City, MO, December 21 2015 – It's been over 3 ½ months since the Missouri Ethics Commission issued a “consent order” declaring that I violated state law when I exercised my right to free speech without registering as a lobbyist and filling out regular reports. (The background story is detailed at below.) Since the September order, my First Amendment legal team has filed an appeal to the Administrative Hearing Commission, and just last Friday they filed a motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings. The outcome of this case could affect scores of average citizen activists who don't want to leave the making of the laws they and their families must live under up to politicians and professional lobbyists. <click here to continue reading>
|
Article I, Section 8 Mo. Constitution: |
|
The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine Neither the General Assembly nor the People need to settle for mere political statements... November 23, 2015 - Jefferson City, MO How should Missouri respond to the Syrian refugee situation? Since immigration and naturalization are clearly constitutional functions of the federal government, what can Missouri do, constitutionally, if we decide that we don't want refugees resettled here? I'm proud of my friends who have asked what the Christian's responsibility is in the matter. What does the Bible teach about situations like this? How should that affect what Missouri decides to do? How should that affect what Christians should do? We'll explore the constitutional and scriptural answers to all of those questions in detail, below, but we'll start with a summary answer and warning about empty political responses to the overwhelming public outcry against resettlement of these unfortunate refugees in the United States.
<Click here to finish reading this message in your browswer> Ask your state rep and senator to commit fo settling for nothing less than a new law that establishes legislative oversight of refugee resettlement. For liberty, - Ron
|
|
|
Landmark Gun Rights Case  October 24, 2015 - Jefferson City, MO About a month ago we emailed an alert about the Missouri Supreme Court's systematic dismantling of Amendment 5, the gun rights amendment to the Missouri Constitution voters overwhelmingly adopted on August 5, 2014. Read about it here: https://www.mofirst.org/emails/Freedom-Center-Files-A5-Brief.php We reported that Missourian's gun rights would be in the balance in the Missouri Supreme Court this Tuesday, Oct. 27. This is a call to action – please watch history in the making by attending the two hours of very interesting hearings. Frankly, I was resigned to the prospect that the Court would once and for all gut Amendment 5, but just yesterday there was a game changer. In an unprecedented turn of events, the Freedom Center of Missouri learned that they would be given the entire thirty minutes to make their very principled and constitutional argument in defense of Amendment 5. The Freedom Center's attorney, David Roland, had filed an amicus brief in both cases, and now the attorney for one of the defendants has asked Dave to take ALL the argument time on behalf of his client -- and Amendment 5. <MORE>
|
 |
|
Missouri Supreme Court Nullifying Gun Rights Amendment Freedom Center of Missouri Files Brief September 28, 2015 - Jefferson City, MO On August 5, 2014, over 60% of Missouri voters ratified Amendment 5 and thereby added to the Missouri Constitution sweeping new protections to our right to keep and bear arms. Since then, the Missouri Supreme Court has been on a course of systematic nullification of the People's will. It started with an after-the-vote challenge to Amendment 5's ballot title. Although the court found the ballot title “fair and sufficient”, they explained that their ruling was based on the assumption that Amendment 5 didn't really add any new protections to our rights. That set the court up to mold the amendment into their own liking. FELON IN POSSESSION CASES Next came two criminal court cases in which both defendants had been accused of violating a state law that prohibits felons – all felons – from possessing a firearm. The alleged violations were before Amendment 5 passed. The two men had previous convictions for felonies not related to any violence. Since Amendment 5 only allows the state to pass laws restricting the gun rights of “convicted violent felons”, both defendants claimed protection under the new constitutional provision. The prosecutors appealed and the Supreme Court decided that the new standard didn't apply to them, since they were arrested before August 5th. Nonetheless, the Court took that opportunity to inject some “dicta” in their written opinion that they could later use as an excuse to unravel Amendment 5. <more>
|
|
Missouri Ethics Commission Ruling Threatens Citizen Activism
Jefferson City, MO, September 11, 2015 - The Missouri Ethics Commission issued a Consent Order, directing Ron Calzone to register as a lobbyist or cease exercising his free speech rights. Calzone maintains that he does not fall under the statutory definition of a legislative lobbyist. In recent years citizen activists have turned the tide on a lot of legislation in Jefferson City. In many instances they have made powerful politicians and high paid lobbyists look pretty lame. The unpaid citizen is a threat to their power base because we can't be bought off and there's no threat to our job security. From time to time the power brokers have resorted to political threats of one sort or another in their effort to squelch us. Using the Ethics Commission as a political weapon is one of their tactics. This case could affect the entire citizen activist movement, so please pay attention and go to this page to learn more about the case: |
Article I, Section 8 Mo. Constitution: First Amendment U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jefferson City, MO, May 29, 2015 - A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB 672, passed by the Missouri General Assembly in 2014, was filed in Cole County circuit court on May 29th. The lawsuit claims that the General Assembly ignored the constitutional limits to their legislative authority. The Missouri Constitution includes clauses that prohibit legislators from changing the purpose of a bill, including multiple subjects in one bill, or passing a “special law” that fails to treat everyone equally. Additionally, the lawsuit seeks to establish “citizen standing” in court to make such legal challenges. Courts currently recognize “taxpayer standing”, or the right of taxpaying citizens to sue when the law being challenged somehow affects the taxes he pays, but “standing” is not guaranteed a citizen if neither taxation nor government expenditures affect him. If the “citizen standing” claim is recognized by the courts, the door will be opened for similar suits even when the laws being challenged don't affect the taxes of the person filing the lawsuit. The plaintiff in the challenge is Ron Calzone, a political activist and one of the founding directors of Missouri First, Inc., a think tank devoted to promoting constitutional governance. Although not an attorney, Calzone filed the suit “pro se” (Latin, “for oneself”), in part to demonstrate that the abuses by the General Assembly are so blatant that even a non-lawyer can succeed in legal challenges against some of their bills. He also hopes that it will encourage other citizens to bring similar challenges as long as the General Assembly refuses to abide by the constitutional limits on their powers. Details about the lawsuit and the bill being challenged can be found at https://www.mofirst.org/?page=lawsuits/2014-SB672/2014-SB672-Challenge.php ### For additional information, contact:
|
What is Mercantilism? “Mercantilism, which reached its height in the Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state.”
For details about the lawsuit: CLICK HERE |
It was the worst vote in recent Missouri history, but the House may break the record this week. May 13, 2015 - Jefferson City, MO It was, arguably, the worst vote ever taken by either house of the Missouri General Assembly. It was April 14, 2011 and a unanimous vote by the House of Representatives to 3rd Read and Pass HB 609, the bill that would have set up a state Obamacare exchange. Largely due to the fast work of grassroots activists, HB 609 was stopped in the Senate. Of course, in retrospect, we know just how bad it would have been to set up a state exchange, since non-cooperation by Missouri and a majority of the other states states will be a major factor in dismantling Obamacare. On top of that, we now know that the opponents of HB 609 were right about the ongoing cost to the states that did set up exchanges. In the news today we learn that the Hawaii legislature was faced with the decision to spend over $30 million to bail out their exchange or let it go belly up. They made the right decision – the one they should have made from the start. In the remaining three days of session, the Missouri House has a chance to break the 2001 worst vote record. <continue>
|
|
Would it be a good for Congress to call a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution? The answer is easier than you think, if you will simply CONNECT THE DOTS... May 12, 2015 Many people who normally agree on political issues are on opposing sides of the Article V convention issue (aka, “Convention of the States” or “COS”). A lot of claims are being thrown around by both sides, most of which are speculation or, at best, educated guesses about what to expect would happen if a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution did occur. As a long-time opponent of such a convention, my approach has been to point out just how many critical questions must be answered before it is reasonable for state legislatures to apply to Congress for a convention. (See some of those questions here.) In an epiphany moment, though, I realized how to boil the entire issue down one simple indisputable and decisive fact. The realization of this elementary fact is a game changer for anyone who might be on the fence or even a supporter of a COS. There are only a few dots to connect, so please read on... <continue>
|
|
Bills appying to Congress for an Article V Convention are shortsighted... May 3, 2015 Two COS bills passed the Senate and are being considered by the Missouri House of Representatives. Go to our Article V Convention Resource page for a list of questions that should be answered BEFORE asking Congress to call a convention. You will be surprised at how many unknown variables there are.
|
|
For Immediate Release Governor Nixon's November 17th Declaration of a State of Emergency is Illegal November 19, 2014 In anticipation of civil unrest in Furguson, on November 17, 2014 Governor Jay Nixon issued Executive Order 14-14, declaring that State of Emergency exists in the State of Missouri. That declaration was not legally proclaimed. Under Missouri law, the declaration of emergency and the assumption of what could easily be considered dictatorial powers by the governor, applies to the entire state, not just some region suffering from a disaster or civil unrest. The powers the governor assumes during a state of emergency are enumerated in Chapter 44.100 RSMo. They include the power to “Seize, take or requisition... Any means of transportation, other than railroads”, “Any communication system”, “All stocks of fuel”, and “Facilities for housing, feeding and hospitalization of persons, including buildings and plants”. The governor can also, “Control, restrict and regulate by rationing, freezing, use of quotas, prohibitions on shipments, price fixing, allocation or other means the use, sale or distribution of food, feed, fuel, clothing and other commodities, materials, goods or services.” The declaration of a State of Emergency is no small matter. That's why Missouri law limits the Governor's authority to declare an emergency to times when there is an “actual occurrence of a natural or man-made disaster of major proportions within this state” (Emphasis added.) 44.010(6) RSMo <click here to read full release>
|
Amendment 5 (SJR 36) Will Give Missourians the Strongest Constitutional Gun Rights in the Country!
Legal Standards of Review The most important part of Amendment 5 is requiring the courts to use the most stringent standard of review (strict scrutiny) when someone challenges the constitutionality of a law infringing on gun rights. We have been losing what should be easy court battles because the courts use dumbed-down standards, like the "rational basis test", which basically means anything the courts want it to mean. The Institute for Justice has done a good job of explaining this problem: https://soundcloud.com/institute.../make-believe-judging-the and ://www.ij.org/.../other_pubs/neily_georgetown_journal.pdf Missouri has many statutes dealing with weapons. Those statutes are currently presumed constitutional unless they “clearly and undoubtedly” violate the Constitution and “palpably affront some fundamental law embodied in the constitution.” State v. Richard, 298 S.W.3d 529, 530 (Mo. banc 2009). Under current law, the state has the “inherent right to regulate the carrying of firearms as a proper exercise of police power.” Id. at 532. As attorney Chuck Hatfield has pointed out, the SCOTUS and Missouri courts have used what amounts to the rational basis test when examining laws that infringe on the tight to keep and bear arms. The bottom line is that everyone -- including convicted felons and those accused of being mentally infirmed, for the first time in Missouri history, will enjoy the defense of the strongest legal standards. Chuck Hatfield is one of Missouri's sharpest attorneys and he has explained, here, the very legal mentality Amendment 5 is designed to thwart. I believe that SJR 36 / Amendment 5 provides the road map for constraining the courts to properly respect and defend our rights in a LOT of areas. They SHOULD already be using strict scrutiny, the highest standard of review, where ALL our rights are concerned.
|
Hamilton on the Supremacy Clause “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general govennment...but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added) (Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s ratifying convention).
|
- Joplin Globe: Mike Maharrey, guest columnist: Arguments of those opposing gun bill fail |
Aug.26, 2013 By Mike Maharrey (Communications director at the Tenth Amendment Center) JOPLIN, Mo. — In a few weeks, the Missouri Legislature will consider overriding Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of a bill nullifying federal actions violating the Second Amendment.  Mike & Cynthia Maharrey
Email Mike: michael (dot) maharrey (at) tenthamendmentcenter (dot) com ###
|
Hamilton on the Supremacy Clause “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general govennment...but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added) (Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s ratifying convention).
|
Governor Nixon's Veto of the Second Amendment Preservation Act |
July 9 12, 2013 Ironically, Governor Nixon chose July 5th to veto the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 436). The day after we celebrated the 237th anniversary of our Declaration to King George III that the People are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, the governor became an obstacle to the General Assembly, who are living up to their OATH to defend those rights – the same oath the Governor took. The Declaration of Independence was precipitated, among other things, by the king's effort to disarm the Colonists. The “shot heard around the world” was fired by – or at – British troops sent to confiscate the arms stored at Concord. After several grueling years of war, the newly declared sovereign states beat back one tyrant, but they were afraid that the new federal government they were creating might some day also try to disarm and subjugate the People. Some states refused to ratify the proposed constitution without clear, unambiguous statements securing their unalienable rights and limiting the power of the federal government – they demanded a Bill of Rights in addition to language that limited that government to a small set of defined powers. The full meaning of the Second and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights have been ignored too long. A proper understanding supports the General Assembly's decision to pass the Second Amendment Preservation Act. Here are the plain and simple facts that politicians, lawyers and judges have been obfuscating – facts the People need to take back if there's any hope of restoring the Founder's dream:
“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.” (10th Amendment) In the spirit and authority of both the Declaration and the Constitution, the Second Amendment Preservation Act is the State of Missouri asserting the powers “reserved” to the States and the People. The Act does not attempt to tell other states what they should do, but is does avow that Missourians' rights will be defended in their home state. By passing the Act, our state legislators were doing what the Missouri Constitution calls “the principal office of government”, that is, defending the liberty of the People – in this case, from unconstitutional federal edicts. For the state to do less, Article I, Section 2 says, is to “fail in its chief design”. Governor Nixon's administration's release of the private information of 163,000 CCW holders to the Social Security Administration is reason to believe he is hostile to the People's Second Amendment Rights. Now his veto of the Second Amendment Preservation Act fuels those concerns. The Governor's claim that the Act violates the Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. Art. VI) rings hollow and an examination of that clause, and what the Founders said about it, defies his claim. The Supremacy Clause, as the text says itself, only applies when a federal law is made “in pursuance” of the Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton explained at New York’s ratifying convention, “the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding”. In Federalist 33, referring to “laws” NOT made “in pursuance” of the Constitution, Hamilton said, “These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.” The governor seems committed to the preposterous notion that only the federal government, itself, can determine when an edict of Congress is “in pursuance” of the Constitution, but that would leave the federal government free to determine the extent of its own power and the states that created the federal government with no say. That's a dangerous doctrine, fit for the subjects of despots, but not free citizens. Grounded in the principles of the Declaration, the doctrines of interposition and nullification as legal and political tools to fight unconstitutional acts of government is part of the heritage of a free people. The colonists successfully used it against the king's illegal and oppressive edicts, like the Navigation Acts and the Stamp Act. And the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 & 1799 saved an unknown number of newspaper editors in those two states from fines and prison when they nullified the the unconstitutional federal Sedition Act, which outlawed criticizing the federal government. Besides protecting newspaper men, one happy effect of the Kentucky Resolution was the election of its author, Thomas Jefferson, to president in 1800. Later, in an era when the U.S. Supreme Court said in the Dred Scott Opinion that it was legal to relegate black men, women and children to sub-human status, several states defended the liberty of accused run-a-way slaves by nullifying the unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act. In fact, their nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act was so effective that South Carolina listed it in their "declaration of causes" for seceding from the Union. “An increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.”
In increasing numbers, Americans are dusting off the pre-revisionist history books and are waking up to an understanding of the heritage that's been stolen from them. A May 13, 2013 Rasmussen Poll found that a majority of “mainstream voters” now support the use of nullification against unconstitutional federal acts. The People are once again understanding the meaning of the Missouri Constitution's Article I, Section 1, which says, “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.” Fortunately for the People, the General Assembly will likely override Governor Nixon's veto. Unfortunately for the governor, he will go down in history as one who missed the opportunity to prove his campaign claims that he supports gun rights. It's too bad he didn't follow the lead of the governor's of Kansas and Alaska, who both recently signed similar legislation. ### |
Hamilton on the Supremacy Clause “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general govennment...but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added) (Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s ratifying convention).
|
2013 MO Legislative Session |
May 12, 2013, Here are the most important bills to watch and act on this last week of session: SJR 14: Constitutional Amendment greatly strengthening the right to keep and bear arms. This is actually the most important gun bill of the session. Status: Waiting for the House General Laws Committee to report the bill out (Has been voted "do pass" by that committee.) This measure only needs one more vote by the House to be placed on the ballot for voters to approve. We don't want any amendments, otherwise it will have to be voted on by the Senate again, and that will probably kill it. Action: Call your state representative and ask them to tell House leadership that this bill is a must-pass. Bring it to the floor for a vote without ANY amendments.
SB 210: Requires the Dept. of Education to hold public meetings to answer questions about the intrusive Common Core Standards. If fully implemented, the Common Core Standards program will track hundreds of pieces of personal information about public school children in a national database. Status: Hearing scheduled for Monday
Action: Attend hearing, if you can, fill out a witness form if you can't make it. (See the message about Common Core Standards from former state Rep. Melissa Leach at the end of this column.)
SB 252: Reins in the Department of Revenue; Protects personal data; Moves CCW permitting process to Sheriffs.: Status: House calendar Senate Bills for 3rd Reading; Has passed the Senate, but has also been amended in the House, so it needs a vote in the House and then another in the Senate; May still be amended on the House floor before passage.; Action: This bill does a lot to address the Department of Revenue scandal, but still lacks an important provision to hold directors of state agencies accountable. Ask your state representative to support an amendment to put HB 886 on SB 252. That will give the legislature the power to remove directors and deputy directors of state agencies, like the DoR, with a process similar to impeachment.
HB 787: This is the House version of SB 252. It also reins in the Department of Revenue; Protects personal data; Moves CCW permitting process to Sheriffs.: Status: This bill is not quite as far along as SB 252. It has been voted "do pass" in the senate committee, but has not been placed on the calendar. Action: This bill also does a lot to address the Department of Revenue scandal, but still lacks an important provision to hold directors of state agencies accountable. Ask your state senator to support an amendment to put HB 886 on HB 787. That will give the legislature the power to remove directors and deputy directors of state agencies, like the DoR, with a process similar to impeachment. As always, thanks for taking your stand for liberty! For liberty, - Ron An Important Message About Common Core Standards From Former Rep. Melissa Leach Dear Patriot Friend,
Senate Bill 210 needs your immediate action!
Fill out and submit this online witness form TODAY to show your support of SB210!
SB 210 requires Commissioner of Education Chris Nicastro to hold public meetings in all 8 congressional districts. She will be required to report ALL costs to the state and school districts and report facts about the data collection associated with implementing Common Core State Standards.
Fill out and submit this online witness form TODAY to show your support of SB210!
Sample Testimony language:
This is to support SB 210 which holds DESE accountable by reporting to the public: the costs to the state and to school districts for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in MO; and, describe any data that shall be collected as a result of the implementation of the Common Core State Standards, and any governmental entity, quasi-governmental entity, or consortium that collects data or receives data as a result of the implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Commissioner Nicastro and the State Board of Education are public servants who should provide transparent information for the public before fundamentally transforming public education with standards copyrighted to private, Washington-based, trade organizations (the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers), and joining an assessment consortium that, in effect, diminishes state sovereignty by reducing control of Missouri's student testing to one vote in a collective of over 25 states. I also support that no additional amendments will be made to SB210 either in committee or on the floor of the House during debate. You don’t need to write this extensively about it in the Testimony section, but you should write something even if it’s just, “I support SB210 without House committee or floor amendments.”
DESE IS USING YOUR TAX DOLLARS TO WORK AGAINST YOU!
Below (in italics) is an e-mail that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education sent out on Friday, May 10, to people on its TAXPAYER FUNDED OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS LIST and sent it from its mo.gov address encouraging recipients to sign a petition in support of the Common Core State Standards – that is, against Senate Bill 210. From: DESE Communications <communications@dese.mo.gov> On Monday, May 13, the House Education Committee will discuss the Common Core State Standards in a hearing. We need to accurately express the support for these Standards in Missouri.
Please show your support of the Common Core State Standards in Missouri by signing this online petition: <https://www.change.org/petitions/state-of-missouri-support-the-common-core-state-standards-2> Feel free to pass along this link to other supporters of the Standards. Thank you, Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Communications | 573.751.3469 | dese.mo.gov The Department communications system should not be used for political purposes, that is, it should not be used as a lever against those who do not agree with the Department’s actions.
DESE's ABUSE OF INFLUENCE and YOUR TAX DOLLARS makes it all the more important for YOU to complete a witness form BEFORE 8 AM on MONDAY, May 13, when the House Education Committee meets consider SB 210.
The goal is 1,000 witness forms!
You can access the witness form and submit it online at:
Help keep YOUR state government accountable to its citizens.
p.s. The Republican National Committee has passed an official resolution opposing Common Core
|
Hamilton on the Supremacy Clause “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general govennment...but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added) (Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s ratifying convention).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UPDATE! On the evening of May 8, the Missouri House finally agreed to and passed the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act by a vote of 116 to 39. The next step is the Governor's signature. More details later, but for now thanks for everyone who helped!!
Second Amendment Preservation Act |
May 2, 2013, There's more to this story than we can go into right now, but suffice it to say that the most difficult part of this process, getting a passing vote from the Senate, is behind us. Technically, the next step is for the Senate to formally ask the House to accept their version of the bill. If the House does, and we're confident they will, the House needs to take one more vote to accept the finished product. The last time they voted on this bill it passed 115 to 41. Three things happened to the bill while the Senate had it: An amendment added to the original HB 436 by the House which imposed mandatory penalties was removed. Here's the removed amendment. Two amendments were added on the Senate floor. The first was offered by Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal as follows: (9) The General Assembly of the state of Missouri strongly promotes responsible gun ownership, including parental supervision of minors in the proper use, storage, and ownership of all firearms, the prompt reporting of stolen firearms, and the proper enforcement of all state gun laws; The other amendment was offered by Senator Brad Lager. It reads: “571.067. No county, municipality, or other governmental body, or an agent of a county, municipality, or other governmental body, may participate in any program in which individuals are given a thing of value in exchange for surrendering a firearm to the county, municipality, or other governmental body unless: As you can see, the Senate changes do no harm to the underlying bill. Please stay tuned... For liberty, - Ron |
Hamilton on the Supremacy Clause “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general govennment...but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added) (Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s ratifying convention).
|
Second Amendment Preservation Act |
April 25, 2013, Thank you to all who filled out a witness form for the Senate hearing. Your participation is truly making a difference! General Laws chairman, Sen. Brian Nieves, scheduled this special hearing and expedited the process by holding an executive session on the bill at the same hearing. They voted to pass the bill on to the full Senate by a vote of 4 to 1 (a couple of senators were not present). The next step for this bill is to be placed on the Senate calendar by president pro tem of the Senate, Tom Dempsey. Sen. Dempsey was quick to assign it to the General Laws committee, so we expect him to do the same for the next step. Once on the calendar, it will be up to majority floor leader, Sen. Ron Richard, to bring it to the floor for debate and "perfection" by the whole senate. After that, the senate will have one more up or down vote. Sen. Richard will need to allow it enough time to overcome opposition and potential filibuster. The last step will be hammering out any differences between the language in the bill as it passed the House versus what the Senate passed. For liberty, - Ron |
Hamilton on the Supremacy Clause “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government...but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added) (Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s ratifying convention).
|
Second Amendment Preservation Act HB 436 passed the House 115 to 41. |
April 23, 2013 Witnesses / Witness Forms needed for Senate Hearing Having passed the House of Representative with a resounding veto-proof majority of 115 to 41, HB 436 now goes to the Senate. Good Video report on passage of HB 436. After being assigned to committee, the next step is another public hearing. That hearing is now scheduled. As we did in the House, we need to make a loud and unmistakable statement about the People's desire to pass this bill asap!
This hearing is a special hearing called by the committee chair, Sen. Brian Nieves. There will be very little time for testimony, but just being at the hearing makes a strong statement. If you can't make it to the hearing, please fill out a witness form.
Details about HB 436 & SB 325 Since the 10th Amendment makes it clear that all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the People, the regulation of the ownership of arms is a state, not a federal matter. That applies to ALL such regulation. We must demand from our legislators no less than the strongest, most principled stand they can take to defend our right to keep and bear arms! Rep. Doug Funderburk and Sen. Brian Nieves' "Second Amendment Preservation Act" is the strongest and most principled protection of the right to keep and bear arms in the nation!. Notice that it utilizes the words of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to explain Missouri's authority to nullify unconstitutional federal edicts within her borders. Including this language is essential to the success of the bill. It also specifically lists the types of things we will not put up with, and that's what gives state officials the "cover" they need to enforce the bill. The New American article about HB 436. For Liberty, - Ron |
Hamilton on the Supremacy Clause “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government...but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added) (Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s ratifying convention).
|
Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act VOTE 117 to 39 |
April 3, 2013 For any bill to become law, it must first receive a "perfection" vote and then a "3rd read" vote in both the House and the Senate -- 4 votes total.* HB 436, the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act, has passed the first of those four tests by a vote of 117 to 39. The next step, probably Thursday, will send the bill to the Senate, where it needs a hearing and committee vote before going to the full Senate. The Senate will be a tougher fight, so we need to stay vigilant! GUN RIGHTS RALLY THURSDAY, APRIL 18 -- 10:00 a.m. to Noon Come to the rally at the Missouri Capitol and you will probably get to watch the House pass HB 436! Listen to great speakers and pass out the I Support Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act posters! For liberty, - Ron * There are also committee votes and there could be more vote by the full House and Senate, if the bill receives more amendments. |
Bill Empowers Legislature to HB 886 allows the legislature to fire department heads |
April 12, 2013 By now, you probably know quite a bit about Missouri government agencies playing loose and free with your personal information – including firearms related data. As the Senate investigation proceeds, the situation seems to be going from bad to worse. Previously, we learned that the Department of Revenue was illegally complying with the intrusive federal REAL ID Act and installing new equipment that would upload your personal data to a 3rd party which is being monitored by Homeland Security when you get your driver's or CCW license. Now the Senate has discovered that at least twice the Missouri Highway Patrol has sent the entire list of CCW holders names and addresses to a federal agency, breaking more than one Missouri law in the process. The deputy director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety, under which the Highway Patrol functions, denies any wrongdoing and says they would do it again. Here are a couple of the latest stories: https://www.missourinet.com/2013/04/12/dps-official-nothing-illegal-about-releasing-ccw-permit-list/ https://www.semissourian.com/story/1958457.html Both the House and Senate are livid. Sen. Kurt Schaefer will be conducting hearings around the state to get citizen input and Speaker Tim Jones is planning a fly-around the state to raise awareness of the situation. Additionally, legislation is advancing that will make it clear in no uncertain terms that state departments must protect our personal data. There's one huge problem, though. The General Assembly has very little recourse when rogue department directors refuse to follow the law. The Governor is the only one who can fire them. Simply threatening to cut budgets is not enough. That's where HB 886 (Rep. Kurt Bahr) comes in. This bill empowers the legislature to remove agency directors and deputy-directors who they feel are misusing their power. Similar to the traditional impeachment process, a removal under HB 886 originates in the House and requires the Senate to agree that it's in the best interest of the People to remove the Governor's appointee. This process is both constitutional and in keeping with the foundational principles of checks and balances. Article VII Sec. 4 provides the authority for HB 866: “Except as provided in this constitution, all officers not subject to impeachment shall be subject to removal from office in the manner and for the causes provided by law.”
HB 866 is the “law” that will provide for such removal, and that's good news for anyone concerned about their Second Amendment rights or the security of their personal data. Even better news is the fact that both House and Senate leadership have made it clear that HB 886 is high priority. Even though this bill was filed right before the cutoff date, it has been fast-tracked and will get a hearing this Monday. That's where you come in. Please either plan to attend the hearing, or fill out a witness form for us to print and deliver to the committee on your behalf. Please be sure to leave comments on the form – we are providing an easy way for legislators to read them. This bill is on the fast track now, and your input will help keep it that way! For liberty, - Ron
-
|
Hearing at Noon Monday
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Missouri Senate Passes SJR 14! |
|
April 4, 2013 Missouri Senate senator Kurt Schaefer continues to lead the way where defending the right to keep and bear arms is concerned. Thursday SJR 14 was passed by the entire senate with a vote of 29 to 2 (3 were absent). Here's the vote:
YEAS—Senators SJR 14 has also been "first read" in the House, so the next step is for it to be second read and assigned to a committee which will hold another public hearing, vote on it and, hopefully, report it to the whole House, which in turn has to vote on it twice. Then it bypasses the governor and goes straight to the ballot for voter's approval. Although the Missouri Senate has been doing a good job advancing gun rights bills, the House has been painfully slow getting anything done. Hopefully, they will not let SJR 14 bogg down like HB 436 has. Recall that Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 436 and its companion in the Senate, SB 325) is the key to defending us against federal infringement of our gun rights. SJR 14 is, in trun, key to defending the Second Amendment Preservation Act. We must continue to press for all three of these acts. Please don't let up!For Liberty, - Ron |
|
Missouri Senate Subpoenas |
|
March 26, 2013 The Missouri Senate, particularly, Sen. Kurt Schaefer, is not going to settle for the evasive answers given by the Director and Deputy Director of the Missouri Dept. of Revenue at an earlier hearing. At that hearing, Sen. Schaefer caught the DoR in a lie about their acceptance of grants from the federal Department of Homeland Security. Listen to this 5 minute exchange he had with the directors. YouTube Audio Going far beyond a Freedom of Information Request, the Senate has now subpoenaed the department, demanding detailed documentation under the force of law. Here's the subpoena Legislators have no greater responsibility than to protect our core liberties!For Liberty, - Ron |
|
It's time for a full-blown push to pass |
The Missouri General Assembly is back in session Monday, March 25 after a week long spring break. March 16, 2013 Reality Check... There are only 2 months left in the Missouri General Assembly's legislative session. Every passing day decreases the chances any bill has to pass and our state legislature is on vacation this week. We must work while they are on break!. The new attacks on our right to keep and bear arms are moving faster in Congress than the protection bills are moving in the Missouri legislature. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has passed bills to require universal background checks AND an assault weapon ban. Pundits say those bills won't pass the full Senate or the House, but federal and state agencies are implementing programs that are eroding the right to keep and bear arms piece by piece. The actions of the Veterans Administration and the Missouri Dept. of Revenue's collaboration with the Dept. of Homeland Security are prime examples. Meanwhile, the only thing even through the committee process in Missouri is SJR 14, which is good, but only part of the solution. If we don't step up our effort we will lose! Our goal MUST be to pass either HB 436 or SB 325 and put it on the governor's desk within the next 30 days. Why 30 days? Missouri law requires the governor to either sign, veto, or let a bill become law without his signature within 15 days of receiving it from the legislature if there are more than 15 days left in the session. If he vetoes it, the legislature can, then, override the veto during the remainder of the session. If legislators won't commit to this time-table we must seriously question their commitment to protecting our Right to Keep and Bear Arms! Waiting any longer may very well kill our opportunity!
Please act on this. We can't lose this one! For liberty, - Ron |
Download and Post this sign everywhere! HB 436 & SB 325 About Nullification Interview With A Zombie (8 min. YouTube featuring Prof. Thomas Woods and The Zombie talking about nullification.) Professor John Eidsmoe Explains "Interposition" (In support of Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore's nullification of a federal order to remove the Ten Commandment Monument from the state Supreme Court building. Professor Thomas Woods explains nullification at the Kansas City Nullify Now conference last summer. (39 min. YouTube) Joshua Glover's Story: Nullification and Resistance to Slavery in 1850s America Nullification: Answering the Objections by Thomas Woods The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 Virginia Resolution of 1798 James Madison's Report of 1800 -- a defense of the Virginia Resolution |
UPDATE! Another great hearing. We turned in well over 800 witness forms and had great in-person testimony. The next step is for Senator Nieves to schedule an executive session so his committee can pass the bill to the whole Senate. March 8, 2013 Now we're moving! The Second Amendment Preservation Act is moving on a parallel course in both the Missouri House and Senate. That will speed up the process considerably. HB 436 is expected to be voted "do pass" by the House General Laws Committee next week. And the hearing for SB 325 is Tuesday afternoon at 3:00. This is a new hearing in front of a new committee, so we need a new witness form from you. (PLEASE! Only fill out one per bill.) Why are these witness forms important? There are literally hundreds of bills under consideration at the Capitol in Jefferson City. Leadership in the House and Senate have to choose which ones get some of the limited time they have, and a large public outcry for a bill elevates its importance. I'll guarantee that it get's their attention when you plop 1000+ witness forms on the table at a hearing!
Details about HB 436 & SB 325 Since the 10th Amendment makes it clear that all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the People, the regulation of the ownership of arms is a state, not a federal matter. That applies to ALL such regulation. We must demand from our legislators no less than the strongest, most principled stand they can take to defend our right to keep and bear arms! Rep. Doug Funderburk and Sen. Brian Nieves' "Second Amendment Preservation Act" is the strongest and most principled protection of the right to keep and bear arms in the nation!. Notice that it utilizes the words of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to explain Missouri's authority to nullify unconstitutional federal edicts within her borders. Including this language is essential to the success of the bill. It also specifically lists the types of things we will not put up with, and that's what gives state officials the "cover" they need to enforce the bill. Tenth Amendment Center article about SB 325 & HB 436.
|
About Nullification Interview With A Zombie (8 min. YouTube featuring Prof. Thomas Woods and The Zombie talking about nullification.) Professor John Eidsmoe Explains "Interposition" (In support of Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore's nullification of a federal order to remove the Ten Commandment Monument from the state Supreme Court building. Professor Thomas Woods explains nullification at the Kansas City Nullify Now conference last summer. (39 min. YouTube) Joshua Glover's Story: Nullification and Resistance to Slavery in 1850s America Nullification: Answering the Objections by Thomas Woods The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 Virginia Resolution of 1798 James Madison's Report of 1800 -- a defense of the Virginia Resolution |
UPDATE! We had a great hearing. We gave the committee over 1230 witness forms -- they were impressed. There were several witnesses testifying in person in favor of HB 436 and ZERO against.! Second Amendment Preservation Act -- Hearing Now Scheduled for 5:00 pm Wednesday
This hearing will be in addition to the regularly scheduled Tuesday hearing. If you haven't done so already, fill out your witness form for HB 436. New Threat to CCW rights and privacy! The Missouri Department of Revenue is using new equipment that will "share" your personal information -- probably including information about people with conceal carry permits -- with Homeland Security. March 4, 2013 Have you seen the latest reason we need the Second Amendment Preservation Act? The Federal Government Wants to Know Who Owns Guns Once again we're learning that Congress doesn't have to pass a new law and the president doesn't even have to sign an executive order to undermine your 2nd Amendment rights. Using the existing Federal Real ID Act, the federal government has begun collecting information on gun owners. The "enhanced driver's license" the Real ID Act calls for includes technology like Radio Frequency ID chips (RFID), that can be read when the holder is merely in the proximity of the scanner. Also included is a Machine Readable Zone (MRZ), which looks like a speckled barcode, but can hold tremendous amounts of information. (Take a look at your current driver's license.) Reports are that the Missouri Department of Revenue has taken a grant to set up the new technology in local license offices across the state.
A legal petition requesting a temporary restraining order on the implementation was filed today in Stoddard County and Judge Rob Mayer promptly signed it. Click here to read the legal petition. This petition is the first step to quashing the DOR's new privacy destroying plan. There's no doubt that the case will work its way up the legal system. We must insist that the courts respect Missouri's sovereign right to protect her people's privacy and right to keep and bear arms.
The basis of the lawsuit and subsequent restraining order includes a 2009 law in which Missouri nullified the intrusive federal Real ID Act. Judge Mayer understands the purpose of that law because he was in the General Assembly when it was passed. A few lawmakers back in 2009 had the foresight to protect us from Real ID, and we need legislators to likewise step up to the plate and protect us from the new federal efforts that infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights! There's only one reason the feds want to know who owns guns -- so they can take them away with the time is "right". In Missouri, HB 436 and it's companion Senate bill, SB 325, are the only bills that will fully protect us from federal gun grabs. What you can do:
Details about HB 436 & SB 325 Since the 10th Amendment makes it clear that all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the People, the regulation of the ownership of arms is a state, not a federal matter. That applies to ALL such regulation. We must demand from our legislators no less than the strongest, most principled stand they can take to defend our right to keep and bear arms! Rep. Doug Funderburk and Sen. Brian Nieves' "Second Amendment Preservation Act" is the strongest and most principled protection of the right to keep and bear arms in the nation!. Notice that it utilizes the words of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to explain Missouri's authority to nullify unconstitutional federal edicts within her borders. Including this language is essential to the success of the bill. It also specifically lists the types of things we will not put up with, and that's what gives state officials the "cover" they need to enforce the bill. Tenth Amendment Center article about HB 436. For Liberty, - Ron |
About Nullification Interview With A Zombie (8 min. YouTube featuring Prof. Thomas Woods and The Zombie talking about nullification.) Professor John Eidsmoe Explains "Interposition" (In support of Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore's nullification of a federal order to remove the Ten Commandment Monument from the state Supreme Court building. Professor Thomas Woods explains nullification at the Kansas City Nullify Now conference last summer. (39 min. YouTube) Joshua Glover's Story: Nullification and Resistance to Slavery in 1850s America Nullification: Answering the Objections by Thomas Woods The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 Virginia Resolution of 1798 James Madison's Report of 1800 -- a defense of the Virginia Resolution |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
February 23, 2013 Have you seen the latest reason we need the Second Amendment Preservation Act? Veterans Receive Letters From VA
Prohibiting
Congress doesn't have to pass a new law. The president doesn't even have to sign an executive order. Under existing law the Veteran's Administration can make a policy change that triggers a clause already in the Brady gun control act and strip veterans of their right to keep and bear arms. Read this story and this one. It's clearer than ever, they won't be satisfied to just ban "assault rifles", they won't stop until every citizen has been disarmed! The states must each rise to the defense of their people. Some Missouri Reps and Senators are doing just that -- and you can help. In Missouri, HB 436 and it's companion Senate bill, SB 325, are the only bills that will protect our veterans from the sort of infringements described above. Either this coming Tuesday or the following Tuesday HB 436, the Second Amendment Preservation Act, will have a public hearing in the House General Laws Committee. This committee is predisposed to support this bill, but we need to send a message of strong support that will resonate throughout the Capitol.
Details about HB 436 & SB 325 Since the 10th Amendment makes it clear that all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the People, the regulation of the ownership of arms is a state, not a federal matter. That applies to ALL such regulation. We must demand from our legislators no less than the strongest, most principled stand they can take to defend our right to keep and bear arms! Rep. Doug Funderburk and Sen. Brian Nieves' "Second Amendment Preservation Act" is the strongest and most principled protection of the right to keep and bear arms in the nation!. Notice that it utilizes the words of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to explain Missouri's authority to nullify unconstitutional federal edicts within her borders. Including this language is essential to the success of the bill. It also specifically lists the types of things we will not put up with, and that's what gives state officials the "cover" they need to enforce the bill. Tenth Amendment Center article about HB 436. What you can do:
|
About Nullification Interview With A Zombie (8 min. YouTube featuring Prof. Thomas Woods and The Zombie talking about nullification.) Professor John Eidsmoe Explains "Interposition" (In support of Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore's nullification of a federal order to remove the Ten Commandment Monument from the state Supreme Court building. Professor Thomas Woods explains nullification at the Kansas City Nullify Now conference last summer. (39 min. YouTube) Joshua Glover's Story: Nullification and Resistance to Slavery in 1850s America Nullification: Answering the Objections by Thomas Woods The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 Virginia Resolution of 1798 James Madison's Report of 1800 -- a defense of the Virginia Resolution |
February 15, 2013 The statists are getting a lot of media attention with their liberty-stealing, gun control bills, but the only legislation actually moving in the Missouri General Assembly will protect your right to keep and bear arms. Two types of measures are moving at the state house:
HB 436 and SB 325 will get hearings as early as February 28th, but a public hearing is already scheduled for SJR 14 NEXT WEEK. Please plan to attend the hearing or fill out an online witness form, which we will print and hand deliver with hundreds of others to the Senate General Laws committee. Witness Form Link for SJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment) Generic Witness Form: Click for Witness Form
Details about SJR 14 As a constitutional amendment to the Missouri Constitution's existing Article I, Sec. 23, SJR 14 does three things:
Details about HB 436 & SB 325 Since the 10th Amendment makes it clear that all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the People, the regulation of the ownership of arms is a state, not a federal matter. That applies to ALL such regulation. We must demand from our legislators no less than the strongest, most principled stand they can take to defend our right to keep and bear arms! Rep. Doug Funderburk and Sen. Brian Nieves' "Second Amendment Preservation Act" is the strongest and most principled protection of the right to keep and bear arms in Missouri!. Notice that it utilizes the words of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to explain Missouri's authority to nullify unconstitutional federal edicts within her borders. Including this language is essential to the success of the bill. It also specifically lists the types of things we will not put up with, and that's what gives state officials the "cover" they need to enforce the bill. More on these bills later... Tenth Amendment Center article about HB 426. What you can do:
|
Meet the Sponsors SJR 14 HB 436 SB 325 About Nullification Interview With A Zombie (8 min. YouTube featuring Prof. Thomas Woods and The Zombie talking about nullification.) Professor John Eidsmoe Explains "Interposition" (In support of Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore's nullification of a federal order to remove the Ten Commandment Monument from the state Supreme Court building. Professor Thomas Woods explains nullification at the Kansas City Nullify Now conference last summer. (39 min. YouTube) Joshua Glover's Story: Nullification and Resistance to Slavery in 1850s America Nullification: Answering the Objections by Thomas Woods The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 Virginia Resolution of 1798 James Madison's Report of 1800 -- a defense of the Virginia Resolution
|
UPDATE! This bill has been filed as HB 436 2nd Amendment Preservation Act Bill to Completely Nullify Unconstitutional January 31, 2013 The anti-gun contingent is not hiding their agenda -- they want to systematically and completely disarm all Americans. There has never been a stronger push for gun control. Between President Obama's executive orders and Congress' dismal record of defending the Constitution, it's clear that Missourians must throw up their own uncompromising line of defense of their God-given right to keep and bear arms. To that end, Rep. Doug Funderburk is about to file the bill with the strongest and most principled stand against unconstitutional federal gun control. The bill is currently in "blue back" form as he gathers cosponsors. Here's the text of the bill. Notice that it utilizes the words of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to explain Missouri's authority to nullify unconstitutional federal edicts within her borders. Including this language is essential to the success of the bill. It also specifically lists the types of things we will not put up with, and that's what gives state officials the "cover" they need to enforce the bill. There are other 2nd Amendment bills being considered by the Missouri legislature, and while their sponsors are to be commended for their efforts, those bills leave huge loopholes that will render them ineffective. What you can do: Call your Missouri state representative and ask him to cosponsor Rep. Doug Funderburk's 2nd Amendment Preservation Act by Tuesday morning.
|
Learn More About The Bill Here's the text of the bill. . Interview With A Zombie (8 min. YouTube featuring Prof. Thomas Woods and The Zombie talking about nullification.) Professor John Eidsmoe Explains "Interposition" (In support of Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore's nullification of a federal order to remove the Ten Commandment Monument from the state Supreme Court building. Professor Thomas Woods explains nullification at the Kansas City Nullify Now conference last summer. (39 min. YouTube) Joshua Glover's Story: Nullification and Resistance to Slavery in 1850s America Nullification: Answering the Objections by Thomas Woods The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 Virginia Resolution of 1798 James Madison's Report of 1800 -- a defense of the Virginia Resolution
|
HOT! Prescription Drug Monitoring Government Database bill UPDATE (Final) The fillibuster was a success! A deal cut that saves face for the supporters, but effectively kills the database this session. Look out next year, though. Some of the senators who took a stand this time around will no longer be in the Senate. UPDATE (9:30) There's a deal being considered by both sides... A favorable resolution may be at hand. More in a little while. Your help needed now! May 3, 2012 There are two bills that would set up a statewide government computer database to track everyone who buys certain prescription drugs. The House version of that bill, HB 1193 (Frederick), has passed the House and will receive it's final debate -- and maybe passage -- before the entire Senate this afternoon. One of the reasons we don't like Obamacare is the database of our personal medical records it would establish. Can you believe that some members of the Missouri General Assembly want to do the same thing here in our state? Sen. Kevin Engler will be trying to pass HB 1193 on the senate floor and Senator Rob Schaaf will filibuster this bill, with the help of several liberty-minded senators who are listed below. Two Parts to our Plans of Action There are two things you can do to help: 1) Please email the senators listed below and tell them you fully support them and "have their back"! (Don't call unless you have a special relationship with them -- there's no need to tie up their phones.) Ask them to take as long as it takes to kill HB 1193 -- the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Act. 2) Throughout the filibuster, send emails to molibertytools@gmail.com. While senators are filibustering, they will read these emails on the senate floor. (You can listen to the live debate by clicking HERE.) The filibuster may go all night long and into the morning, so check in occasionally and keep the emails coming! We will try to provide updates on various Facebook pages and at www.mofirst.org. This is an important battle -- please pass this on and stay tuned!
Please also call your own senator and make sure he or she knows you don't want more "Big Brother" government intrusion!
|
Other News Health Care Freedom Act HJR 64 (Curtman) advanced another step in the House Thursday morning. It's poised for debate on the House floor while the Senate version is ready to debate on the Senate floor.
Senate Hearing on Bill to Nullify Obamacare Next Tuesday HJR 64 (Curtman) advanced another step in the House Thursday morning. It's poised for debate on the House floor while the Senate version is ready to debate on the Senate floor.
|
UPDATE: The Senate Liberty Team got the $50M stripped from the budget! Missouri Senate puts $50 million Federal Funding For Obamacare Exchange Back In Budget It was exactly 2 months ago we reported that House Budget Committee chairman Ryan Silvey rejected the $50 federal grant to set up a computer system that would facilitate the Obamacare Insurance Exchange. Missouri's budget bill has passed the House without the $50M and is now working it's way through the Senate. But now the same $50 million grant for a new Medicaid enrollment system has been placed back in the bill by the chairman of the Senate Budget committee, Kurt Schaefer. This money is coming from a grant that is specifically designated for creating the Obamacare Exchanges. We need to let Senator Schaefer know that the 71% of the voters rejected Obamacare don't want Missouri to take the bait -- we don't want anything to do with Obamacare! PLEASE CALL OR EMAIL Senator Schaefer and tell him to remove the $50 million Medicaid Enrollment System grant from the budget. Sen. Kurt Schaefer This is URGENT -- The Senate will be working on this bill right away this week! We need the Senate to follow the lead from the House and defend Missouri liberty by passing the Obamacare nullification bill, HB 1534, instead of helping establish Obamacare with the grant money. |
$50 million Federal Funding For Obamacare Exchange Out of Budget - For Now... In a Budget Comittee meeting, after grilling representatives from the Department of Social Services and receiving pitiful responses, Rep. Ryan Silvey declaired that the $50 M federal grant that clearly could be used to set up an Obamacare Exchange WILL NOT be in the Budget he takes to the full House. |
|
Missouri Leadership Project Takes on House Hubris |
|
Missouri Movement to Nullify Obamacare Under Way Tandem measures to be introduced by Rep. Kurt Bahr:
More and more people are becoming wise to the ploys of those who use government's power for personal gain. Some are obvious -- eminent domain used on behalf of a private developer, for instance. Tax credits and other subsidies to private industry are also clearly a form of "crony capitalism" or mercantilism. The grand-daddy mercantilistic scheme in recent history has got to be Obamacare, though! Like other forms of mercantilism, Obamacare not only results in special favor to well-connected private parties, but it also grows government's power and influence over our every day lives -- in this case it's the federal government. Patriots across Missouri are rising up on the heals of the tremendous (71%) Prop C vote in August of 2010 to demand that Missouri legislators take the next strep to protect them from this unconstitutional federal intrusion. Rep. Bahr's measures are the logical next steps. For the text, see the right side bar. Efforts to implement Obamacare are under way by Governor Nixon and his agencies. See the this link for the Missouri Health Insurance Pool's resolution to set up an Obamacare Health Inurance Exchange in an end-run around the state legislature and the vote of the people. |
Text of Obamacare Nullification Measures Health Care Freedom Amendment to Missouri Constitution - Promo Flier Note: These measures have not been filed as bills yet because cosponsors are still signing on. MHIP Obamacare Exchange Resolution - What is Mercantilism? “Mercantilism, which reached its height in the Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state.” |
We've been sold a bill of goods. If you weren't already upset over the passage of MOSIRA, you will be after reading this. MOSIRA Made Eas(ier) What is MOSIRA?
Summary
Click through to see the answers to the following questions:
|
What is Mercantilism? “Mercantilism, which reached its height in the Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state.” For More Information About the China Hub Read this Show-Me Institute Study
More From Free Audio Downloads Missouri needs economic development through economic freedom, not mercantilism!! |
An Open Letter to Missouri Legislators Jefferson City, MO – July 28, 2011 Economic Development Bill? Government does not “develop” the economy; it is only a drain on the economy. Sometimes the “drain” is a worthwhile investment, as in providing roads and keeping the peace, but usually government actually “undevelops” the economy. Mostly that's because government does not create private sector jobs or produce goods and services -- businesses do while government places regulatory impediments in the way of productivity and drains resources through taxation. It's that simple. That's why the the Missouri Constitution says that the “principle office” of government is to protect the liberty of the People to pursue economic opportunities (Art. I § 2) and do so without conferring favored treatment. Art III § 39(5), Art. X § 3. The China Hub legislation and other special subsidies violate those constitutional principles. Additionally, they produce unseen consequences to the economy, the extent of which we may never know. LEARN FROM BASTIAT Frédéric Bastiat illustrated this point in a cogent and entertaining way in his essays about, “That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen”. You owe it to yourself – and your constituents – to at least read the “Parable of the Broken Window”. Go to https://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html Speaker Pro-Tem Schoeller gave each House member a copy of Bastiat's “The Law” last spring. In this 1850 essay the author shows how French law was perverted into a tool for special interests to “plunder” the people. He pointed to America, which had thrown off the mercantilism of England, as an example of the power of liberty and a true free market economy. Sadly, Bastiat would be disappointed in us today, since we have in many ways returned to the very mercantilism that once enslaved the Colonists under the hand of King George III. Before the Special Session, before you consider legislation that will “tinker” with what's supposed to be a free market, please read “The Law”. (Or download a free audio mp3 version by following the link at the top of this page.) LAW – A TOOL TO PLUNDER OR A TOOL FOR LIBERTY? Here's how Bastiat concludes “The Law”: This must be said: There are too many "great" men in the world — legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it. Now someone will say: "You yourself are doing this very thing." True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to study and admire. My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks — armed with rings, hooks, and cords — surrounded it. One said: "This child will never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders." A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." Another said: "He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull." "Stop," cried the traveler. "What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty." God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! A way with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations! And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works. In the Special Session, vote “No!” to government picking winners and losers. Vote “No!” on subsidizing Chinese manufacturers. End the tax credits, don't create more! Let's get government out of the way and let businesses compete in the fresh air of a fair and open market. Missouri needs economic development through economic freedom, not mercantilism!!
|
What is Mercantilism? “Mercantilism, which reached its height in the Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state.” For More Information About the China Hub Read this Show-Me Institute Study
More From Free Audio Downloads
|
Missouri Firearms Freedom Act
|
We must
choose
"For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline." 2Ti 1:7 |
Click Here For Online Witness Form Against HB 974April 18, 2011Tomorrow morning (4/19/2011), the House Elections committee will hear HB 974 -- it will gut the electoral college if it comes to fruition. |
Free Market Solution to Puppy MillsApril 11, 2011
|
What to do about the unconstitutional
|
Candidate Outlines a U.S. Senator's Role in States'
|
Education Reform -- Constitutional Principles Must be ConsideredSince securing liberty is the principle office of government (MO Const. Art. I § 2) and since government's role in education is declared to be for the purpose of promoting liberty (MO Const. Art. IX § 1a) , it behooves us to make sure the no part of education reform undermines liberty in the process. |
|
The Constitutional Approach to Education Reform January 18, 2011 Education is NOT the state's #1 priority – Securing Liberty Is While it's true that an entire article of the Missouri Constitution is devoted to education, and that article requires that a minimum of 25% of state revenue be spent on education, education is not state government's number one priority. The first and foremost priority of Missouri government is clearly spelled out in Article I § 2 of the constitution:
Furthermore, even the constitutional rationale for free public education is based on the preservation of liberty:
FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE: Missouri's education policy must be crafted in a way that respects and does not diminish the liberty of the people. Otherwise, Missouri government will "fail in its chief design". <MORE> |
Three Guiding Principles of Missouri Education Policy
|
An Open Letter to Missouri LegislatorsIn all of Missouri history there have only been 28 statute changes placed on the ballot by the initiative petition process. Of the 12 that passed, Proposition B had the narrowest margins. A shift of only 8/10 of 1% would have changed the outcome.Some of the provision of Prop B are blatently infringements on the rights of some Missourians. What should be done? |
|
Lawmakers Have a Constitutional Obligation to Repeal Prop B Jefferson City -- January 11, 2011 The Missouri General Assembly has an obligation to repeal at least part of Proposition B in spite of the fact that it was just passed by the voters. Each legislator has a constitutional responsibility to support such repeal regardless of how his district voted on the proposition last November. To do less would be a violation of his oath of office. Admittedly, that's a bold claim. After all, the people have spoken and we should respect their collective will, shouldn't we? <MORE> ### |
Missouri Ballot Initiative History There have been 372 initiatives on the Missouri ballot since 1910. Prop B passed with the lowest margins in Missouri History - 1.6% Click here for a live interactive database of Missouri Ballot Initiative history. |
Law-makers Have No Choice – They Are Obligated to Repeal Prop BOn November 2, 2010 the people of Missouri spoke.In the narrowest voter approval of a statute change ever, 51.6% of those Missourian voting approved a law described by a prejudice ballot title. |
|
Missouri – November 11, 2010 The Missouri General Assembly has an obligation to repeal at least part of Proposition B in spite of the fact that it was just passed by the voters. The courts have a similar obligation. That might sound like an odd position from someone who may very well be Missouri's most outspoken proponent of the citizen's right to the initiative petition process. After all, the people have spoken and we should respect their collective will, shouldn't we? Our state constitution says “The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly.” (Art. III § 49) This incredibly important provision is designed to afford the people a “check” on the power of government -- a way to override or bypass officials who have been oppressive or unresponsive to the will of the people. The initiative petition process is an important constitutional “tool” among the others which are designed to preserve Missouri's system of government and the liberty of her people. It fortifies the first great characteristic of our constitutional republic, which is the premise that “all political power is vested in and derived from the people ”. (See Mo. Const. Art I § 1) There is, however, another great characteristic of a constitutional republic – we are governed by the Rule of Law. That means that there are some laws that not even a majority of the people have authority to enact. Those would be laws which diminish God-given and constitutionally protected rights. So on one hand an American Constitutional Republic protects the people from the tyranny of a few by ensuring that all political power remains vested in the people and on the other hand it protects the individual from the tyranny of the majority through the principles of the Rule of Law. Prop B's limit of 50 breeding dogs is tyranny of the majority. It violates basic constitutional principles which override even the right of the people to use the initiative process. Put another way, the people lack jurisdiction to limit a breeder to 50 breeding dogs because such limits amount to a limitation on one's right to earn a living – “the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry”. (Mo. Const. Art I § 2) If one takes the arguable position that the state has an interest in the well-being of the property (dogs) of individual citizens, and if there were something special about the number 50, then there might be some state interest that would temper the individual rights mentioned. But 50 is an arbitrary number with no meaning what-so-ever. 51 or 60 or 200 breeding dogs can be kept in equally healthy and humane conditions as 5 or 10 or 50. There is no relationship between the number of animals a breeder can have and the well-being of those animals. Now, a limit on how many dogs you could have per handler, or how much living space must be afforded each dog would affect their well-being, and some might claim the state has an interest in those “per dog” conditions, but as long as each individual animal is afforded an adequate living arrangement, why should the number of dogs matter? So the 50 dog limit is blatantly unconstitutional; but what obligates the state's law-makers to repeal it? What obligates the courts to over-turn the law? It is the same constitutional clause that protects the right to the “pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of our own industry” – Article I Section 2. The end of that very clause says “that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.” Each of our legislators and each judge has sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution. They have obligated themselves to secure the rights of the people of Missouri – including those who want to earn a living with more than 50 dogs. It is their job to interpose on behalf of the victims of the tyranny of the majority. To do less is a violation of their oath of office. They must repeal the unconstitutional portions of Prop B. ### |
Live interactive database of all ballot initiatives The two main characteristics of an American Constitutional Republic: 1) All political power is derived from and vested in the people. 2) We are governed by the Rule of Law, therefore even a majority of voters have no jurisdiction to destroy the constitutional rights of individuals. The Republic's "checks" on tyranny: 1) The citizen's ballot initiative is one of the checks on the Tyranny of the Few. 2) The Rule of Law (e.g. the constitution) is a check on the Tyranny of the Majority. The constitution trumps the voter's approval of a statute change which infringes on individual constitutional rights. The primary role of government is to protect the rights of the people: Mo Const. Article I, Section 2. State legislators took an oath to uphold Article I, Sec. 2, therefore they are obligated to repeal the unconstitutional provisions of Prop B -- they have no choice, no matter how their constituents voted on the ballot measure. |
What!? A year in prison for filing horse's teeth?
|
Paul Jacob Maintains the Republic By Empowering Citizens |
|
Oklahoma – October 27, 2010 -- Update: The radio ads worked and the measure passed! Fight for the Citizens Voice in Oklahoma Oklahoma has a hostile environment for citizens seeking to use the petition process to deal with a legislature which is either oppressive or unresponsive to the people. The people are given only 90 days to collect almost twice the number of signatures per capita as here in Missouri. What's more, the Oklahoma AG tried to send three petition activists to prison over trumped up charges based on a law that has since been found unconstitutional. Paul Jacob, of Citizens in Charge, was one of the "Oklahoma Three". We're glad he's not in the pokey because he's out there every day fighting for the liberty of Americans all across the nation. Paul is probably the one guy most responsible for bringing term limits to the many states now fortunate enough to enjoy them -- including Missouri. Citizens in Charge is focused on bringing the citizens initiative petition process to states not yet blessed with it, and defending it where it already exists. The current opportunity in Oklahoma blends both term limits and the petition process. Tools that help to maintain a republican form of government - that is, one in which the people are still in charge. A ballot measure to create term limits for the state-wide office holders there is very popular. A new ad campaign will tie that issue with another ballot measure to make the almost impossible petition process there more reasonable. Paul needs to raise about $15,000 in the next couple of days to finish up his media buys for a radio spot. That's not much if we all will pitch in a little. What's in for Missourians? Besides helping out a guy whose done so much for our state, passage of those two ballot measures in OK next week will set a good example for the Missouri legislature to follow. We need term limits on all our state-wide officials AND we need to fix our petition process, too, so it's not just available to the well-heeled interests. Can you donate a few dollars to help someone who has helped us so much? |
Listen to the Radio Ad
Update: The radio ads worked and the measure passed! Many Thanks to all who helped!! |
Governor's Tax Credit Commission Seeks Reform, But Should Eliminate Tax Credits Instead |
|
Jefferson City – September 10, 2010 Tax Credit Review Commission (Click to email memebers or for hearing info) Co-chairs Missouri taxpayers footing the bill for well over half a billion dollars in tax credits each year. Most of those credits are nothing more than corporate welfare - mercantilism. Missouri State Auditor, Susan Montee, determined that the state's tax credit system is not producing a reasonable return on the taxpayers investment. Her analysis was only of that which can be observed and measured, but there are many unseen effects from such tinkering with markets. If the "unseen" effects could be measured, the results would be even more disastrous. |
Tax Credit Review Commission
April 2010 audit of Missouri's 61 tax credit programs. SLU Report on Historic Tax Credits
|
Video: What is an American Constitutional Republic? |
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Missouri Ballot Initiative Facts - |
|
Is it a good idea to require a super-majority to amend the Missouri Constitution? Here is are some facts and historical data to help you decide... Live interactive database of all ballot initiatives from 1910 to 2010 (click here):
|
Read about the importance of the petition process to a healthy constitutional republic. 2010 Petitions...
|
So-Called "Ethics Bill" Leads to a Call For The End of The Rules Committee |
|
Jefferson City – May 12, 2010 Missouri's legislative process is broken. While that might be comforting to liberty loving citizens who cringe every time they hear a new law has been passed, make no mistake about it, the broken process is not gridlock that prevents freedom-stealing laws from being passed – in fact, the process often promotes them. Common Ground, Not Compromise It is a misconception to believe that the legislative process should be about "compromise". Compromise too often includes a surrendering of principles or capitulation to a more powerful force. In a civilized society – one in which the people have many more shared values then divergent ones – the goal of governance should be to find common ground, not force compromise. Common ground governance maximizes liberty, harmony, and fraternity. <more> |
www.mofirst.org " Partisan hacks on both sides line up like medieval armies and charge one another with swinging swords and clubs. The people – common citizens - are caught in the middle. More often than not, their liberty suffers." |
May 6, 2010 -- General Assembly Attack on Citizen Lobbying! |
|
Missouri House votes to make non-registered citizen lobbyists felons! Download the short eval HERE. Missouri First eval of SB844 HERE. ALink to the bill: SB844!
|
Download: Missouri First eval of SB844 HERE. Download a PDF of SB844 with notes: HERE |
The Petition Rights Protection Act Submitted to SOS! |
|
Q. How long do you wait for the General Assembly to fix the problems with Missouri's petition process? A. Not one more moment! SB 818 seems hopelessly mired in politics. Although there are some fine statesmen, like Sen. Jim Lembke, there aren't enough to overcome the apathy or hostility toward the people's constitutional right to the petition process. That's why the Committee to Protect Petition Rights is seeking a solution "independent of the legislature", as Article III, Section 49 of the Missouri Constitution says. Their petition seeks to change the statutes in three primary ways: 1) Make respect for the voters the primary consideration in the petition processing procedure. The deadline for collecting almost 100,000 valid signatures is May, 2012. |
Downloads: |
Your Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances Under Attack! |
|
End of Session Update: All the anti-citizen's initiatives died in the senate! Rep. Parson is running for the state senate, though, and if he is elected will probably push for the same restrictions from that side of the building. Update to Update: Rep. Parson won is bid for state senate. He will likely be in the senate for at least 4 years. Will he continue his attack on the petition process? There a handful of bills attacking your right to petition, but the ones that are moving through the legislative process are sponsored by Rep. Mike Parson. HB 1788 has passed the House and will have a hearing in the Senate elections committee on Monday, May 3rd! HB1788: Although the supporters of this bill claim that it is designed to keep out of state interests from coming to Missouri and changing our laws, it actually does nothing to that end. Instead, it hinders the right of Missourians to place an issue before the voters so they can decide. The bill arrogantly pre-supposes that voters can't be trusted. Here's what the bill does:
Prohibits out of state petition circulators Prohibits paying circulators based on performance Prohibits circulating more than one petition at a time The first two provisions have been repeatedly found unconstitutional when other states tried them and no other state has been arrogant enough to even try the last! This bill is clearly unconstitutional and designed to effectively end the petition process, not clean it up. Shame on you, Rep, Parson! What happened to your oath to support and defend the constitution? ACTION ITEM: Download the witness form in the right column and email it in so we can present it to the committee hearing on May 3. Rep. Mike Parson has also sponsored HJR 63 a constitutional amendment that will greatly increase the number of signatures required to place a question on the ballot. The increase difficulty and expense will take the petition process out of the reach of grass-roots efforts. This measure will get it's final passing vote in the House any day and then be sent to the Senate. |
Missouri Constitution Article III Section 49:
|
National, Socialized Medicine |
|
Upon the completion of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin said:
"When the people find they can vote themselves insurance coverage, that will herald the end of the republic." Listen to the following interview in which Judge Napolitano explains why ObamaCare is unconstitutional and gives real solutions to this massive federal takeover of our personal liberty.
|
Lest we forget... In 2000, President Bush announced his prescription drug plan. It paved the way for ObamaCare. President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 paved the way for President Obama's Race to the Top.
|
Petition reform bill in Senate and House |
|
End of Session Update: SB818 was allowed a little more time on the sentate floor near the end of the legislative session, but majority floor leader, Sen. Kevin Engler, would not allow the bill enough time to move. Engler is a vocal opponent of the people's right to initiative petitions. April 27, 2010: It is hard to tell if the bill will receive more floor time before the end of session. In the mean time, bills that would effectively strip Missourians of their constitutional right to the initiative process are advancing in the House. HB1788 has passed and is due for a hearing in the Senate elections committee and HJR 63 was perfected and is about to pass the House. |
PDF summary of
Senator Jim Lembke Thank you, Senator Lembke!
|
Get your "Concealed Weapons Encouraged" sign here. |
|
Missouri,
February 2009: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Please print and distribute freely! |
|
Missouri Senator Wants to Protect Economic Freedom! |
|
|
End of Session Update: This resolution was given a brief hearing, but most of the General Laws committee left the hearing room before it came up. No further action was taken. There doesn't seem to be much interest among SOME senators in preserving economic freedom. Missouri,
January 2010: Article I, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution defines the primary role of Missouri government as that of protecting our property rights - including life, liberty and estates. Senator Lembke's constitutional amendment would make it clear that those protections include our economic freedom, which, of course, is the bulwark of our other liberties. Here's the amendment (the new language is in bold):
|
|
What is Mercantilism? |
|
“The economic policy dominant in the Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and christened "mercantilism" by later writers, at bottom assumed that detailed intervention in economic affairs was a proper function of government. Government was to control, regulate, subsidize, and penalize commerce and production. What the content of these regulations should be depended on what groups managed to control the state apparatus. Such control is particularly rewarding when much is at stake, and a great deal is at stake when government is "strong" and interventionist. In contrast, when government powers are minimal, the question of who runs the state becomes relatively trivial. But when government is strong and the power struggle keen, groups in control of the state can and do constantly shift, coalesce, or fall out over the spoils. While the ouster of one tyrannical ruling group might mean the virtual end of tyranny, it often means simply its replacement by another ruling group employing other forms of despotism. In the seventeenth century the regulating groups were, broadly, feudal landlords and privileged merchants, with a royal bureaucracy pursuing as a superfeudal overlord the interest of the Crown. “ From “Conceived In Liberty” -- Volume I A New Land, A New People: The American Colonies In The Seventeenth Century by Murray N. Rothbard |
Is mercantilism America's greatest threat? Mercantilism is also known as: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” |
|
Property
Rights – Powers
of the State |
|
|
Missouri, 01/16/2006: That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. (Art. I § 1) The very next section of the
Missouri Bill of Rights makes it clear that the “principle
purpose” of government is to make
sure these seminal principles are always honored. |
Current
eminent domain policy violates the basic concepts of the
separation of powers.
|
|
Property Rights – The Core Issue |
|
|
Missouri, 12/09/2005: An understanding of the heritage of the
American concept of property rights is necessary before we can
properly deal with that issue. Equipped with that understanding,
our concerns will go far beyond any individual neighborhood or
development – we will be concerned about the very
integrity of our system of constitutional governance. Any
social compact that permits the stronger, more powerful to
forcefully take the property of the weaker members of society
will eventually allow similar takings of “property”
of a more personal nature, like life and liberty. |
|
|
Missouri
Resolution to put Constitution Change on November Ballot |
|
|
Can you believe it? Our state is
the only one with a bicameral legislature that allows the Supreme
Court to hold impeachment trials! All other states, but
Nebraska, which is unicameral, and Oregon, which has recalls
rather than impeachment, allow one legislative branch to impeach
and the other, usually the senate, to hold impeachment trials. Of
course, the U.S. Constitution also provides for senate
impeachment trials. |
|
|
On
this page: |
News
|
|
U.S. Constitution Acknowledges God! We live in a time when a government agency or public school is very likely to face a constitutional challenge if it acknowledges God, so you might be surprised to find out that the United States Constitution itself acknowledges God. In fact, the constitution doesn't simply make an ambiguous reference to a generic “supreme being” – it honors Jesus Christ Himself, and submits the nation it defined to Him! “Where?”, you ask, “I've read the entire constitution and never noticed it.” It's there in unabridged copies and we'll take a look at it, but first a quick lesson in reckoning time. Practically every civilization has reckoned time relative to the the king in power during the referenced period. The Bible is replete with examples: “...in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.” (1Kings 6:1) “Then work on the house of God in Jerusalem ceased, and it was stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.” (Ezra 4:24) This practice continues even today in many parts of the world. Until the post WWII Japanese constitution, the emperor was considered a sovereign, divine ruler. Although Emperor Hirohito was prompted by MacArthor to renounce that status, the practice of reckoning time by the current monarch continues. For instance, the year 2005 is officially year 17 of the Heisei Era of the Emperor Akihito. Until 2002, the Japanese Patent Office still used this system. It was no different right before the founding of the United States. The 1774 “Declarations and Resolves” by the Continental Congress complained of long running injustices from the mother country since “thirty-fifth year of the reign of King Henry the Eighth”. By April 19, 1775, however, the jaded colonists were distancing themselves from the current monarch, King George - that was the day of the “shot heard 'round the world” in Lexington, Massachusetts. In the town square that morning the King's Major Pitcairn was being faced down by about 70 colonists. He shouted, "Disperse, ye villains Lay down your arms in the name of George the Sovereign King of England". He was met with the response "We recognize no Sovereign but God and no King but Jesus!". The clarion call of the Revolution became “No King but Jesus!” The forthcoming Declaration of Independence hammered this point home by making it clear that man's rights did not come from an earthly king, but that they were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and that “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. The Founders did not claim to be totally free from a king – just free from an earthly king! It was no coincidence that twelve years later the document that defined the new relationship between the states and defined the role of their general government would culminate with an acknowledgment that Jesus was their King! Article VII, known as the “subscription clause”, says the drafting of the Constitution was “done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”. In other words, 1787 years into Christ's reign (since His birth) the Constitution was drafted. (Note: The Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution, used the same terms.) Some will claim that “that's just the way people talked in those days”. They are right, in part, because it was more socially acceptable to honor God back then, but a look at other documents from that era proves that spelling out “the year of our Lord” was not routine. Virginia's constitution, for instance, fixed it's inception “on Monday the sixth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy six”. How
can anyone who understands American history claim that it is
unconstitutional for the state to acknowledge God when that same
Constitution declares His Son King of the Land! |
|
What
is impeachment? Impeachment is the constitutional process used by the legislature to ensure that the other two branches of government do not overstep their authority. Impeachment is the first of two steps used to remove an official who has subverted his office in some way. Being impeached is not being found guilty; it is not really even a trial, but only an effort to determine if a trial is called for, similar to a grand jury indictment. (More on the trial later.) First, understand that government derives it's power from the governed. The structure of American government is designed to make sure the people maintain ultimate control. Missouri government, like the federal government, is divided into three branches – the administrative, legislative, and judicial. Each branch is limited by the constitution to specific tasks, and each branch serves as a “check and balance” to the other two branches in order to ensure that no branch usurps the liberty of the citizens. Simply put, impeachment is the constitutional “weapon” the legislature uses to protect the liberty of the citizens and maintain it's own share of power among the three branches. Who can impeach a judge in Missouri? Missouri Constitution Article VII Section 2. “The house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.” In addition to impeachment, the Missouri constitution provides for disciplining judges by the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges (Article V, Section 24). The commission's purpose is to maintain the integrity of the courts, but not to maintain the balance of power among the three branches of government, so it is not the proper venue to deal with a judge who usurps the power of the legislature. Why does the power to impeach rest with the house of representatives alone? The legislature's power is divided among a much larger number of individuals, so the likelihood of despotic rule from that branch is relatively small – it is the body that is closest to the people. On the other hand, the power of the administrative and judicial branches resides with but a few men who are less accessible to the common man. Our representatives, like judges, have sworn to defend and uphold the constitution. Impeachment is a solemn responsibility neither to be shirked nor abused. What happens once articles of impeachment have been approved by the house? In Missouri, after the resolution passes the house, a trial ensues in one of two venues: 1) If a lower court judge is impeached, his trial is held before the state Supreme Court; 2) When the governor or a Supreme Court justice is impeached, the state senate selects a commission of seven jurists to hear the trial. The defendant can only be found guilty upon the concurrence of five sevenths of ether the court or commission. (MO Constitution, Article VII, Section 2) A judge is disqualified from acting as a judicial officer while articles of impeachment are being considered, but still receives his salary. (MO Constitution, Article V, Section 24.4) What are the possible penalties if found guilty? Missouri Constitution, Article VII, Section 3: “Judgment of impeachment shall not extend beyond removal from office, but shall not prevent punishment of such officer by the courts on charges growing out of the same matter.” James Wilson, an original justice of the U.S. Supreme court and signer of both the Declaration of independence and the U.S. Constitution said, “impeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.” Impeachment is neither a criminal procedure nor intended primarily for criminal offenses, so penalties are limited to removal from office. Judges removed from office also lose certain retirement benefits. (RSMo 476.480) (RSMo 476.560) (Entire Chapter 476) For what reasons can a judge be impeached? Missouri Constitution, Article VII, Section 1: “All elective executive officials of the state, and judges of the supreme court, courts of appeals and circuit courts shall be liable to impeachment for crimes, misconduct, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude or oppression in office.” A court decision which is clearly in opposition to the plain meaning of the constitution made in favor of personal opinion or in deference to political allies is “corruption in office”. A decision like that is in violation of the judge's oath to defend the constitution and strikes at the seminal principles of “separation of powers”. If a the judge's motives are not malicious, but he simply misunderstands the clear dictates of the constitution, then he is guilty of “incompetency”. |
|
|
MO
Const. Article VII, Section 11: “Before taking office,
all civil and military officers in this state shall take and
subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of
the United States and of this state, and to demean themselves
faithfully in office.” |
|
|
References: Missouri Constitution
Missouri Revised Statutes Search Missouri Revised Statutes
Directory of Missouri Representatives
|
|
|
|
Can you believe it? The Missouri constitution can be amended with a simple majority vote of an uninformed electorate! Maybe the next amendment to our state's supreme law should require a 2/3 vote for changes to this seminal document. |
|
|
|
UN
Flag Flying Over Missouri University! |
This
Land Is Your
Land?
The Problem With the UN Flag |
|
Why Do We Need Sovereignty for Missourians?
In the eyes of many Americans, the distinction between right and wrong has been blurred; our culture is changing faster than it ever has. Why is this, and what will be its end? THE SOURCE OF THE
PROBLEM |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Why Join Missouri First? Membership is Free! |
|
|
|
|
|
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious freedom." -- Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801 |
|
|
Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1787: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." |
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 2010 Missouri First, Inc. Home
- - Charter - -
Essays - - Projects - -
MO History - - MF News - |
