Showing posts with label US Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Constitution. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

Gloucester County, Va. Is Now A 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

On December 3, 2019, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors, after some grandstanded for the cameras and crowd, voted Unanimously to add the County to the ever-growing list of 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries in Virginia and across the nation.

Several hundred people filled the Old Courthouse and Court Circle, with some speaking mostly in favor of protecting our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Gloucester’s Resolution to become a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary, like most other Resolutions in other places, is more symbolic than defiant of Un-Constitutional infringements of the People’s rights. Hopefully symbolism will be enough to peacefully curtail the intentions of the Democrats now in control of our beloved Commonwealth.

Not only do they intend to pass Un-Constitutional gun laws, they also fully intend to ease voter requirements by not requiring identification to vote, allow non-citizens to vote and other such Un-Constitutional measures.

They also intend to flood Virginia with more so-called refugees. In fact, our DemonRat Governor sent a letter to Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, asking that more refugees be sent to Virginia to settle.

We The People must peacefully standup against the tyranny our Democratic controlled government intends to inflict upon us. The only way to do this is through numbers. Millions of people who are currently standing up against the infringement of our 2nd Amendment Rights typically do not vote. However, they are standing up to defend our Constitutional Rights. When those numbers are added to the voters who support our Constitution, it is a huge statement. The momentum gathered in the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movement should also be used to stop some of the Democrat’s other Un-Constitutional intentions. It should also be used to encourage non-voters to become voters.

On December 20, 2019, members of the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary movement will travel to Richmond for VCDL Lobby Day. For more information click here and here. Join the movement and be there to help protect our Constitutional Rights.
Thank You Patriots, for protecting our God Given and Constitutional Rights. A special Thank You to Mr. Mark Thompson, for bring the community together.

God Bless and Long Live The Republic!!

Kenny Hogge, Sr.

Some images from the December 3, 2019 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Meeting.

Thursday, March 28, 2019

All Gloucester Schools In Violation of The US Constitution

Gloucester schools and all schools across the country all operate in violation of the United States Constitution in our opinion.  And we are going to show you why.  Everyday parents are forced to put their children on a bus or walk them to school against the child's wishes and in many cases, against the will of the parents.  That's called kidnapping.  If parents don't send the child or children to school, the parents get into trouble with some crazy claim that they are damaging their children.
(By:  Steven Blume)

There is no provision in the United States Constitution that provides for this.  Children are then imprisoned for hours against their will and forced to work without compensation in violation of the 13th amendment which clearly reads as follows.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Please explain what crime a child has committed that subjects them to such cruel and unusual punishment?  Children are then normally sent home after hours of incarceration to be further punished with what is referred to as homework.  Again, what crime have they committed?  It's called education but is it really?  It's indoctrination and propaganda mixed with some education so that those who run these enterprises can confuse folks into saying it's education.  Money is extorted from the masses of local citizens, many against their will, to support this criminal activity.  Here is what James Madison said about the powers of congress regarding the Constitution.

  So according to Madison, our government does not have a right to take our children from us and tax us for what government these days calls education.  So where does the power come from?

The right to a free public education is found in the various state constitutions and not in the federal constitution. Every state has a provision in its constitution, commonly called the "education article," that guarantees some form of free public education, usually through the twelfth grade. The federal constitution, on the other hand, contains no such guarantee. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 held that education is not a "fundamental right" under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, as a matter of constitutional law, the founding fathers left it to the states to decide whether to provide an education or not and, if deciding to provide one, determine at what level of quality.

The Federal government involvement comes from the so called spending clause, which again, referring to Madison, Congress simply does not have.  For more on what the states are doing, check the link here.

  And, the state's constitutions were not originally set up that way.  Therefore they can and should be considered null and void.  If you are sick and tired of paying for insane indoctrination policies being put on the youth of this nation that have already been proven dangerous, take action.  Stop sending your children to these decrepit institutes of degradation.  Home school.  You do not have to follow their agenda on home schooling either.  Teach your children civics, their natural rights.   No state has the right to take your children at any time for any reason.  Your children are your property.  Government has no say in that area.  Free education was a socialist policy that was allowed into our society and has had crippling negative effects ever since.  Here is a great resource for the birth of government controlled education and it's nasty foundings.  It's foundation, morally bankrupt.  That trend has only continued with great fervor.  It's time for a new war on education, or the end of government controlled indoctrination.  

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Constitutional Corner – “Just who do we think we are?”

By:  Gary Porter

“Just who do we think we are?” stated Chief Justice John Roberts,[1] in what, I predict, will no doubt become one of the most famous statements ever made in a Supreme Court dissent, barely edging out “[The Constitution] had nothing to do with [today’s decision.]”

“Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness,” (emphasis added) he continues. Social policy? I thought Supreme Court decisions were to be rooted in the law? “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judg­ment,” Roberts reminds us.

“The Celebrated Montesquieu” said: “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”

Social justice, the great utopic goal of every Progressive, not jurisprudence, was the goal of the five Justices who formed the majority opinion in Obergefel vs Hodgesl.

It was an act of judicial activism.

What do we mean by judicial activism? The Heritage Foundation defines it this way: “Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning.”

There is no better example than Obergefell.

Prior to Obergefell, the most famous statement by a Supreme Court Justice which encapsulated the idea behind judicial activism occurred when Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall described his judicial philosophy as: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” That’s simply an amazing statement for a jurist: Ignore the law and rule instead based on your “feelings” of what is right. It’s all about feelings to a Progressive; in fact the law is often seen as an obstacle to PROGRESS. So, if you can get a court to declare its sense of justice as “the law,” instead of constraining itself to proper interpretation of the law, all the better.

But judicial activism is often in the eye of the beholder. The perfect example is Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. The Right saw the decision as an affirmation of unrestrained free speech, the Left saw the decision as the perfect example of judicial activism since it “declared corporations were people,” as I heard more than one liberal insist.

Judicial activism is a natural outgrowth of the doctrine of legal positivism, which replaced natural law theory in the late 1800s. Legal Positivism holds that the only relevant law is what man creates. Natural law, if it exists at all, is irrelevant; and revealed law (i.e. as found in the Bible) has no place in a mature society. Since man is constantly evolving (so goes the theory) the law must continually evolve as well. And who guides the evolution of the law? Why, the judges, of course.

In another candid moment, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered aloud whether the court went “too far, too fast” in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision; yet another admission that Progressives see the Court as the “seeing eye dog” of a society groping culturally in the dark. So, perhaps the court went “a smidgen” too far in 1973; so what? Fifty million undelivered babies might have a different opinion.

Compare these previous progressive sentiments with that of Associate Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his 1833 work: “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.” Is that not what we just saw happen in Obergefell?

Thomas Jefferson saw the danger during his time, writing to William Jarvis in 1820: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Besides Obergefell, are there other examples of judicial activism? Lists, long ones, are not hard to find. You’ll find us discussing these cases and more tomorrow morning on “We The People, The Constitution Matters” (7am EDT,

The Heritage Foundation lists these cases (and others) as activist:

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), in which Justice William O. Douglas, in one of the most famous of judicial DIY projects, constructed a right to privacy from bits and pieces of vague privacy inferences salvaged from “emanations from penumbras” of the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade (1973), building on the “right” of privacy constructed in Griswold, the Court then further defined that “right” to encompass the murder of unborn babies, with few restrictions, striking down numerous state laws.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003), building once again on Griswold, the Court decided that the by now very useful “right” of privacy should be extended even further to sodomy — that states would no longer be allowed to decide whether certain sexual acts were immoral and restrictable. Another dose of “social policy.”

Kelo v. City of New London, Conn (2005). In Kelo, the Court took the plain language of the 5th Amendment and contorted it beyond recognition. The Amendment’s final clause requires that private property taken under eminent domain be only taken “for public use.” Historically, this has meant taking property to build roads and stadiums, install utility lines and other public features which benefit all a locale’s citizens. Not so, said the Court. The City of New London was allowed to take private property and give it to a private corporation (Pfizer Corporation) for the purpose of their building a new private manufacturing plant (reasoning that this would increase the city’s tax base, boost revenues, and thus benefit, well, whoever the city spent the money on). Ironically, Pfizer pulled out of the deal after all the necessary homes were razed and the ground sits vacant to this day. The finding in Kelo encouraged more than one state to pass legislation or Constitutional amendments protecting private property from just such predations exhibited in Connecticut.

Perhaps the “poster child” of terrible Commerce Clause cases, but also a perfect example of judicial activism since it contorted the clause’s clear wording, is Wickard v. Filburn. Old Farmer Filburn wanted nothing more than to grow some wheat for his own animals’ consumption; but doing so would exceed his planting allotment. “ If we let you do that,” said the Court (in effect), “you’ll not have to purchase that wheat on the open market, which will affect the interstate market in wheat, which Congress has complete control of under the Commerce Clause.” See the iron-clad legal reasoning? Neither do most people. Wickard was the final nail in the Commerce Clause coffin, and essentially gave Congress (and by extension, the Executive) the power to regulate nearly any business activity. Wickard v. Filburn is the “butterfly effect” applied to the Commerce Clause.

There are many, many more examples and you can study them on several websites. Let’s turn our attention to remedies. What can “We The People” do in the face of judicial activism? We’ll examine six avenues for redress:
Congressional or state legislative or amendment action. We today have several Constitutional Amendments (11th, 13th, 16th, 26th) due to Supreme Court decisions. In some cases the precipitating action was a SCOTUS decision declaring a piece of legislation passed by the Congress to be unconstitutional (16th and 26th Amendments), and sometimes it was merely the implications of a decision. InChisholm v. Georgia the Court declared that citizens could sue sovereign states. The Congress replied: “We don’t think that should be so,” and they dutifully passed and got ratified an Amendment putting their view into effect. The 13th Amendment was at least in part the result of the Court’s horrendous Dred Scott decision. In the wake of the Dred Scott decision, many northern state legislatures scrambled to pass legislation nullifying or muting the effects of the decision.

Jurisdiction stripping: Article 3 Section 2 provides Congress the power to remove any subject area from the Court’s jurisdiction. This was most famously proved in Ex Parte McCardle when the Supreme Court shut down a case “in mid-stream,” i.e., after oral arguments had been heard but before an opinion had been published. This power has been used often by the Congress but is still not widely understood in that body. In 1996, Congress successfully stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain INS decisions. Understand also: for Congress to exert this power, a piece of legislation so stating must be passed and signed by the President, which adds another layer of partisanship to the process. Jurisdiction stripping must also be used “judiciously.” If the Congress tomorrow removed the topic of abortion, for instance, from the Court’s jurisdiction, some say that would prevent Roe V. Wade from ever being reversed, or even reviewed. You should converse with your Senators and Representative to ensure they understand jurisdiction stripping.

Impeachment or Criminal prosecution of judges: To date, sixteen federal officials have been successfully impeached by the House of Representatives. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a Justice of the Supreme Court, and thirteen federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges. District Court Judge John Pickering of the District of New Hampshire was the first impeached official actually convicted and removed from office. He was found guilty of drunkenness and unlawful rulings. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase is the only U.S. Supreme Court Justice to have been impeached (he was acquitted, much to Jefferson’s disappointment). In 1981, Alcee Hastings, sitting as a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, was impeached and removed from the bench (convicted of accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a defendant’s lenient sentence). Once off the bench, he ran for office and the good citizens of Florida’s 23rd District amazingly sent him to Congress as their Representative!
Presidential refusal to enforce: In a statement that is probably apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson is claimed to have said: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” The decision, Worcester v. Georgia (1832) required nothing of Jackson, so it is unlikely he said this, but it points to another remedy. The Congress or the President can decide not to give effect to a Supreme Court decision. This of course would create a Constitutional “crisis” and place things in a state of tension. But as Hamilton points out in Federalist 78: the reason he calls the Judiciary the “least dangerous branch” (boy, was he wrong!) is because“It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” This comports with Jefferson’s opinion that “The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”[2] In other words: the Congress and President are to act as a check on an activist Judiciary.

Presidential pardon: The President’s pardon power, found in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1, gives the President the ability to demonstrate that he believes a court acted improperly. Immediately upon taking office in 1801, President Thomas Jefferson pardoned everyone jailed under the onerous Sedition Act of 1798 (which had given rise to the doctrine of nullification) and even went so far as to return their fines.
Nullification: We discussed this last week on “The Constitution Matters” (you can download the podcast from WFYL’s website). The states and/or the people are free to (and should, according to the venerable Sir William Blackstone) ignore a judicial ruling as null and void if it contravenes natural or revealed law (like the definition of marriage?). A final remedy would be jury nullification, which was used to great effect in response to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and in the aftermath of prohibition (Volstead Act). In both cases juries (Northern juries, obviously, in the case of the Fugitive Slave Act) routinely refused to render guilty verdicts, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt. This action rendered the acts essentially null and void in those jurisdictions.

There are probably other remedies that can be sought in the face of judicial activism. But in the end, what gives a judicial opinion legitimacy (for that is simply what it is: an opinion) is the reaction of the people. A Supreme Court opinion is not the law of the land unless we give it that status.

The Constitution does not begin with “We the Judges,” “We the Congress” or with “ I the President.” As I tell all my classes, it is the peoples’ document (with all due respect to those who hold it to be a compact of the states) and “We the People” need to take individual ownership of it. We need to actively work with our representatives in Congress to “put right” terrible Court decisions, and there are many ways to do so. There have been many terrible Supreme Court decisions over the years and Obergefell, I fear, is not the last of them.

Join us tomorrow morning, 7am, on WFYL (Listen Live at to hear your trusty commentators, joined by special guest, Dr. Herb Titus, Founding Dean of the Regent University Law School, as we discuss: “Judicial Activism.”

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc. To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here
[1] Obergefell vs. Hodges, 576 U. S. ____ (2015)

[2] Letter to Abigail Adams, 1804.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Constitutional Sheriff's: Does Gloucester Virginia Have One?

The assault on the rights of the people of each state is eroded by the minuet of every day.  Fortunately some of the people have elected Sheriff's who have committed to protecting the rights of their constituents and take that oath very seriously.  There are a number of groups that are working very hard at protecting the rights of the people and for that, we give many thanks.

  Oath keepers is one such group.  Their main site is presently down and a new one being built so for the moment they have a blog on  is their link.

This above video is truly amazing and makes one proud that these folks are elected officials of we the people in the state of California.  Imagine what the country would be like if all of our elected officials though this same way?

  We applaud these folks in this video for standing up for the Constitution and the people.  If all of our elected officials would take the time to watch this and then try their best to duplicate the efforts of these folks in the video, what a country this would once again become.

  From what we have heard but have not confirmed, Darrell Warren has refused to take the oath keepers pledge to uphold our Constitution.  If this is true, why?  He had to take an oath of office before starting his position which included swearing to uphold the US Constitution as well as the Commonwealth of Virginia Constitution.  Did he not mean it?  We hope he meant it.  I have had some discussions with Sheriff Warren and he seems like a decent guy.  I have no issues with him based on discussions.  But I would like to know that his department is actually looking out for the people not looking at the people as the problem like so many policing agencies seem to believe.

  Understand your rights and know what they really mean.  Learn everything you can and protect those rights.  Freedom is not free, however, despotism is and there is plenty of it for everyone.  Issue with that is you are the ones that despotism feeds off of.  

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Introduction To The Common Law: How To Get Out of Speeding Tickets

English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...
English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

An introduction to the common law.  Bill Thorton of  gives a brilliant mini education to help you understand what your real rights are.  Thought you knew your rights?  You might want to think again and watch this video all the way through.

  The above video is a long one at almost 3 hours.  It is well worth the 3 hours spent.  It is also more than worth your time to visit the 1215 website and start going through the entire site as it will help you understand the real law of the land as put forth by our forefathers.  The Common Law has not disappeared.  It has only been buried from your view and knowledge.

  There is also a tremendous bonus if you are willing to watch and pay close attention to this video.  Bill tells you how to get out of any speeding ticket.  It will also work with parking tickets.  Now this does take some understanding that the present legal system was not designed with you in mind as far as protecting your rights.  In fact, it is our opinion, as well as the opinion of many others, the present system was designed to work against you every time.

  Why should you visit his website?  Well if you have not watched the video, which you really need to do, the main reason is all the tools on his site to help you build your own case and take the courts back and assert your actual rights that the present courts seem to have well stripped away from you.

  We will be bringing you more on the common law and what your real rights are and why the courts seem to ignore your rights as promised by the Constitution.  We have already amassed a large library of books and documents that we will be bringing to you to help you reclaim your rights and know how to protect them.  Again, the present legal system does not use words in ways you think you understand them.  Even though the words may be in English, they do not have the same meaning under the legal codes as they do in everyday life.

  The above video starts you in understanding just that.  The Constitution isn't dead it's just buried under a pile of dirt that needs to be removed.

Friday, September 12, 2014

An Editorial Apology To Mr Kenneth Hogge, Gloucester, VA

This is an editorial apology to Mr Kennth E Hogge for the above picture I posted underneath his article.  This was an editorial liberty that I had taken on my own without the knowledge of Mr Hogge.  To Mr Hogge, I sincerely apologize for any harm this liberty may have caused you.

  With that said, I do not apologize for using these symbols in articles of late.  It represents what I perceive as government contempt for, "We The People" who pay the taxes only to see what is perceived as government corruption and abuse thrown back at us for no other reason than personal gain by the few at the expense of the many.  I am well aware that the symbols are perceived as hate symbols.  When one looks at the perceived corruption of government officials against "We The People", well then it is clear that "We The People" are hated by the few and are treated with complete contempt.

  How long have we been reporting on this site what has all of the appearances of illegal invasion of properties, theft of real and personal property, illegal laws, codes, ordinances used to prosecute innocent people for the gain of the few?  In our view, courts that ignore the law and assist with these thefts?  How long will we continue to expose these issues?  Is the use of these types of images over the top?  If I can come up with even stronger images I will use them.

   Government View of "We The People"
Death survivors of a Nazi Concentration Camp.

The Nazi party was the National Socialist Party.  Look what they managed to accomplish.  Is the use of these symbols over the top?  Or is our present government over the top that is forcing us to use these symbols to show what we see?  

Our forefathers fought for Life, Freedom, Liberty, Independence, and fair government.  For awhile it worked beyond anyone's wildest imaginations but a few decided they could not control it so it was undermined little by little and now we are surrendering our freedoms at an unprecedented rate.

English: First page of Constitution of the Uni...
English: First page of Constitution of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The only thing they have not done is burn this document before our eyes, but they are working on it.

Over the top?  You decide.  Place your comments below.

Abraham Lincoln Interprets The Constitution

English: Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth Presid...
English: Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States.(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Abraham Lincoln Interprets The US Constitution - Free e-Book from Chuck Thompson

Something we ran across and had to put it up for everyone.  An interesting short book.  It's only really about 12 pages and a quick fun read.  You can open it up to full screen by clicking the icon in the bottom right hand corner.  Free downloads are available from our slideshare site.  Enjoy.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Federalist Papers No. 13 Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government

To the People of the State of New York:
As CONNECTED with the subject of revenue, we may with propriety consider that of economy. The money saved from one object may be usefully applied to another, and there will be so much the less to be drawn from the pockets of the people. If the States are united under one government, there will be but one national civil list to support; if they are divided into several confederacies, there will be as many different national civil lists to be provided for—and each of them, as to the principal departments, coextensive with that which would be necessary for a government of the whole.

 The entire separation of the States into thirteen unconnected sovereignties is a project too extravagant and too replete with danger to have many advocates. The ideas of men who speculate upon the dismemberment of the empire seem generally turned toward three confederacies—one consisting of the four Northern, another of the four Middle, and a third of the five Southern States. There is little probability that there would be a greater number. According to this distribution, each confederacy would comprise an extent of territory larger than that of the kingdom of Great Britain. No well-informed man will suppose that the affairs of such a confederacy can be properly regulated by a government less comprehensive in its organs or institutions than that which has been proposed by the convention.

 When the dimensions of a State attain to a certain magnitude, it requires the same energy of government and the same forms of administration which are requisite in one of much greater extent. This idea admits not of precise demonstration, because there is no rule by which we can measure the momentum of civil power necessary to the government of any given number of individuals; but when we consider that the island of Britain, nearly commensurate with each of the supposed confederacies, contains about eight millions of people, and when we reflect upon the degree of authority required to direct the passions of so large a society to the public good, we shall see no reason to doubt that the like portion of power would be sufficient to perform the same task in a society far more numerous. Civil power, properly organized and exerted, is capable of diffusing its force to a very great extent; and can, in a manner, reproduce itself in every part of a great empire by a judicious arrangement of subordinate institutions.

Read the entire paper below.

Federalist Papers No 13 - Advantage of the Union from Chuck Thompson

Liberty Education Series here on Gloucester, Virginia Links and News.
Enhanced by Zemanta