Fayette County Tennessee Commission Passes Second Amendment Preservation Resolution

FAYETTE COUNTY, Tenn. (Feb. 28, 2013) – The Fayette County, Tenn. County Commission passed its Second Amendment Enforcement Resolution on Tuesday.

The resolution condemns any violations of the Second Amendment, declares them unconstitutional, and therefore null and void. It also calls on the Sheriff  to take all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In addition, the county calls on the state legislature to adopt and enact any and all measures that would clarify the sheriff’s duty and responsibility to defend the citizens of the State of Tennessee against infringement by the federal government.

The resolution passed overwhelmingly by a 17-2 vote.

Read More

Testimony from Steve Lefemine, Regarding Nullification of Obamacare in South Carolina

In the context of this public hearing, there was a dweeb from the University of South Carolina who had previously asserted that anything the Federal Government could dream up, was the Supreme Law of the Land, by virtue of the Supreme Court ruling it Constitutional; even if it was obviously, by any reasonable interpretation, completely repugnant to the Constitution; and that all public officers were duty-bound (by their oath to uphold the Constitution,) to violate the Constitution, in order act in accordance with any Supreme Court opinion, no matter how absurd.

Steve Lefemine touches on the relevant points. If only more Americans had the common (or not-so-common anymore) sense, to act in accordance with righteousness, justice, and human reason, to do what is right.

Listen Now

As the President prepared to deliver the State of the Union address, he will have been aware that some in its second-largest state would rather leave the Union altogether. Last month, the Obama administration rejected a petition calling for the state’s secession from the US. Posted on the White House website in November by a student from Arlington, the petition drew 125,746 signatures in just eight weeks. Similar appeals emerged from all 50 states, but the Texan’s was by far the most-signed. In his response, the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, Jon Carson, claimed the US Constitution, “enshrined… the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot – a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it.”

The petition was rejected, but this week Texas got its first taste of international diplomacy – and its first ally – in the shape of the former Soviet state of Belarus, ruled by brutal dictator Alexander Lukashenko. Apparently fed up with constantly being criticised for abusing human rights, the Belarus Ministry of Foreign Affairs levelled the same accusation at Washington for rejecting Texas’s call. Whether Minsk’s intervention will help the secessionist cause is open to debate.

Texas was briefly a nation, between securing independence from Mexico in 1836 and annexation by the United States in 1845, during which time it had embassies in London and Paris. Alone, the state would boast the world’s 15th-largest economy. At a Tea Party rally in 2009, Governor Rick Perry gave hope to secessionists by suggesting, “When we came into the nation in 1845… we were a stand-alone nation. And one of the deals was, we can leave any time we want. So we’re kind of thinking about that again.” (Last year, Perry’s office informed the Dallas Morning News that the Governor, “believes in the greatness of our Union”.)

One person who could reasonably expect support from the TNM PAC is Larry Kilgore, a 48-year-old telecommunications consultant, who changed his middle name to “SECEDE” in December. Kilgore received 250,000 votes when he contested the Republican Senate primary in 2008, and has announced his intention to run for Perry’s job in 2014. His aim, he told The Independent, is to become Governor and then immediately hold a referendum on independence, before stepping down. “I don’t want people to think I’m just interested in power,” he explained. Kilgore’s reasons for advocating secession are partly economic. He resents paying social security and federal income tax. Also, “We’re not even allowed to execute people who molest children,” he said. “We don’t want the US coming in and saying, ‘You can’t perform this judicial punishment.’”

Read More

Today I attended the Constitutional Laws subcommittee hearing on the "the South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act", which would effectively nullify Obamacare in the State of South Carolina.

The proposed bill is especially useful in its proscription for fines and imprisonment of Federal or State agents who might attempt to enforce the provisions of Obamacare.

The first person to be heard was a professor of constitutional law, which exuded the hubris of a Federal agent, in his assertion that only one interpretation could ever be allowed, in which the unlimited powers of the Federal Government trump State law in all respects. He asserted that the State of South Carolina had no authority whatsoever to interpret the Constitution for itself; and that if the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in favor of the United States, it was the Supreme Law of the Land, and any insubordination was comparable to treason. The members of the Subcommittee fawned over this weasel; while the large room, packed with members of the public (standing room only) were not buying it.

The other chief spokesman was a retired professor of philosophy of law, who correctly described the numerous ways in which Federal decrees might be annulled, both by other branches of the Federal government, or by the States- who created the Constitution with their own specifically delegated powers, when the Federal Government was not a party to the compact, and hence had no standing to arrogate powers to itself. Practically all other spokesmen were for the People, and refuted the idea that the Federal Government was due unlimited allegiance in powers it had usurped to itself. Members of the Legislature questioned them like prosecution attorneys, using loaded questions in the attempt to characterize them as selfish, racist, secessionist neanderthals.

Aside from various colorful allusions to the Late Unpleasantness (fresh in the memory of all South Carolinians), with South Carolina “firing the first shot”, and threats of potential action from the nearby occupying Third Army of the United States; it was obvious that there was a wide disconnect between the members of the Subcommittee, and constituents in attendance to whom they were paying lip service.

Unfortunately the Subcommittee showed no signs of allowing the bill to advance, despite a well-represented cross-section of the people, among them even young girls- schooled by their parents to have a better understanding of the separation of powers than even the duly elected members of the Legislature considering the bill.