The people/the Citizens, individually and collectively, have the ultimate power and
authority because the people, under the Creator, are the sovereigns in America.

Yes, the people are the sovereigns in each individual State and in the united States.
This is confirmed, at a minimum, by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution
for Pennsylvania, various historical documents and by many united States Supreme
Court decisions. For example, consider the following:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
[Declaration of Independence]

“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their
authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement
of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter,
reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.”
[Article I, Section 2, in the Constitution for Pennsylvania]

“To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we
declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of
government and shall forever remain inviolate.” [Article I, Section 25, Constitution
for Pennsylvania]

“In the united States, sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs
established by the Constitution.” [Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471; Penhallow
v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 Dall, 54, 93; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 404,
405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356,370.]

“The Congress, as the instrumentality of sovereignty, is endowed with certain powers
to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution
ordains. The Congress can not invoke the sovereign power of the people to override
their will as thus declared.” [PERRY v. UNITED STATES, 294 US 331, 353, (1934)]

“A state Constitution declares general principles or policies and establishes a foundation
for the law and the government, and is the direct and basic expression of the sovereign
will. It is the mandate of a sovereign people to its servants and representatives, and
no one of them has a right to ignore or disregard its mandates; the legislature, the
executive officers, and the judiciary cannot lawfully act beyond its limitations. Thus, it
is also the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and officers of
government with respect to all matters covered by it, and must control as it is written
until it is changed by the authority which established it.” [16 Am. Jurisprudence, 2d
Section58]

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first
divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each
subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises
to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the
same time that each will be controlled by itself.” [James Madison – Federalist Paper #51]

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a
delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised,
is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To
deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the
servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the
people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their
powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” [Alexander Hamilton – Federalist Paper #78]

In our constitutional republics, an individual natural person, as a sovereign Citizen,
has at all times the right (with the corresponding responsibility) to do anything he or
she wishes to do as long as he or she does not hurt someone else, damage someone
else’s property, or violate someone else’s rights. These are very broad natural
limitations to the exercise of our rights.

We delegate our inherent and indefeasible authority to those in government to act
on our behalf as trustees with very specific, documented constitutional fiduciary
duties and responsibilities.

Contrary to the general misunderstanding today, neither the individual States nor
the united States are sovereign. Only the people are sovereign. The people delegate
our authority to those in government at all levels to act on our behalf as our
representatives/ public servants.

“This “compound republic” is America’s very unique form of government. We held
in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal
regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition
by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue
directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’
officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal
regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by
case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally
incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
[Holding, Mack/Printz v. united States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)]

To recap: “All power is in the people”. All those in government can only act with the
“consent of the governed”. The people are the sovereigns, individually and collectively,
in the States of the Union and the United States of America because we have dual
citizenship in our “compound republic”, first State citizenship and then federal citizenship.
We the Citizens, while not giving it away, empower those in government, at each level, to
use our sovereign authority as trustees to lawfully act on our behalf according to the very
specific provisions in the state Constitution, and where lawfully applicable, the Constitution
for the united states of America.

All those in our governments must strictly follow their “oath of office”, according to the
original intent of the founding documents, at all times and all places while acting in their
official capacity. We the sovereign people of Pennsylvania again respectfully instruct all
those in our State government to enforce the constitutional checks and balances, and the
other well documented remedies to keep the actions of those in the central government in
Washington, D.C. within its lawful limits. For example: Do not implement any part of
“Obamacare” in Pennsylvania!

Nullification is a required “rightful remedy” for unconstitutional “laws”.

County Sheriff Brigades of Pennsylvania, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

To support their position, those that claim that only the courts can determine what is unconstitutional generally point to the U.S. Supreme Court case opinion in MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). However, this is not the correct conclusion drawn from the opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall in this case.

At the very end of his opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall states: “Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him? If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime. It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

Chief Justice Marshall was correctly saying that, like everyone in government, those in the judicial branch, because of their “oath of office”, have a required constitutional duty to examine and determine if their actions are constitutional or unconstitutional. To not so discharge their duties “is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.”

We also must remember that it is settled law that an unconstitutional “law” is not law.

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” [16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sect. 177; later 2d, Sect. 256]

In Pennsylvania, the required constitutional “oath of office”, found in Article VI, Section 3, states: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.”

Before anyone in government does anything, he or she must, as a matter of law, ask, at a minimum: 1) Is it moral? (Because all of our laws are to conform with God’s Laws) and 2) Is it constitutional? If the answer to either of these two fundamental/primary questions is NO, the action must not be taken! So before a Legislator decides to act, for example: introduce a Bill and/or vote on a Bill, he or she must first answer “YES” to these two primary questions in order to comply with their “oath of office”.

The Governor must likewise answer “YES” to these two primary questions before he or she signs a Bill into law, or does anything else in his or her official capacity. Remember, the Governor’s primary duty “is to see that the laws are faithfully executed.” (Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania)

It is the constitutional duty of each judge or justice in the courts to make sure that they, and all others in the judicial branch, always strictly follow their constitutional “oath of office”. When a case is placed before the court, the judge(s) or justice(s) must first determine if they have constitutional authority (jurisdiction) to hear the case. If they have this authority, then they are also required to hear and determine the case strictly according to the original intent of the law, the appropriate Constitution and then statutes, codes, regulations, etc. which are themselves constitutional. To do otherwise would, as Chief Justice Marshall said in MARBURY v. MADISON, “be solemn mockery and … equally a crime.”

Finally, the people/the Citizens, individually and collectively, have the ultimate power and authority to determine if a “law” is unconstitutional, because the people are the sovereigns in America. Yes, the people are the sovereigns in each State of the Union and in the United States of America. This is confirmed, at a minimum, by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and by many United States Supreme Court decisions.

For example, consider: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” [Declaration of Independence]

“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all time an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.” [Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania]

“In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution.” [Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471]; [Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 Dall, 54, 93]; [McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Weat. 316, 404,405]; [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370.]

“The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress can not invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared.” [PERRY v. UNITED STATES, 294 US 331, 353, (1934)]

Therefore, the clear and unavoidable correct answer to the question – “Who can determine if a “Law” is unconstitutional?” is: each and everyone in government, who must do so before they act. This is a required solemn, constitutional duty according to their “oath of office” or the oath of their superior(s).

However, ultimately each individual Citizen has the sovereign power, duty and responsibility, always being responsible for their decision(s) and action(s), to determine what is unconstitutional. Some may say this will result in “total chaos and anarchy”. No! It will once again result in freedom and liberty. Those in government must constantly be held accountable for their actions and/or lack of lawful actions.

It is now time for Pennsylvania to send clear and emphatic messages to those in Washington DC by nullifying “ObamaCare”, Real ID, NDAA and all other unconstitutional U.S. government “laws”.

The very survival of our republic, economy, freedom and liberty depends on these required actions.

CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

In a “democracy”, the majority rules. In a “republic”, it is “the rule of law” that controls. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.

For example: Benjamin Franklin, upon his emergence from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, was asked: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” To this question, Franklin answered succinctly and without hesitation, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

“In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each
subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (Bold print added for emphasis)
JamesMadison – Federalist 51

As evident from the following, the framers considered “democracy” as the worst form of government:
• “A simple democracy … is one of the greatest of evils.” And dismissed it as “mobocracy”. Benjamin Rush
• “In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders. … Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.” Noah Webster
• “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state; it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.” John Witherspoon
• “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
• “Democracy is the most vile form of government … democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” James Madison, 1787, Federalist Paper #10
• “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.”

The word “democracy” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution for the United States of America, because democracy has no place in America. Rather, Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution for the United States of America states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

Today we say the “Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag” which states: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

The United States Army provided the following as a part of very lengthy Training Course titled: “TRAINING MANUAL {WAR DEPARTMENT, No. 2000-25 } WASHINGTON, November 30, 1928. CITIZENSHIP” SECTION IX, LESSON 9. REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, “Paragraph 120” states, in part: “Comparative analysis. — The following comparative analysis shows the principal characteristics of the three forms of government:
Autocracy: Authority is derived through heredity. People have no choice in the selection of their rulers and no voice in making of the laws. Results in arbitrariness, tyranny, and oppression. Attitude toward property is feudalistic. Attitude toward law is that the will of the ruler shall control, regardless of reason or consequences.
Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression.
Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Republic: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.”

Examine governments, at all levels, today. They are intentionally no longer the required “Republics.”

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing.” Edmund Burke

CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

This is part of the oath that witnesses take before giving testimony in a court. We think we know what the word “truth” means. But the definition we, the people, use is the common and normal meaning of the word that we have been taught. What is the actual meaning of the word “truth” used by the courts, i.e., by attorneys and judges? Have the attorneys, judges and professors of law changed the meaning of the word “truth”? For the answers to these questions, one need only turn to various dictionaries.

The Sixth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary (the dictionary for judges and attorneys) defines the word “truth” on page 1515 as:
“There are three concepts as to what constitutes “truth: agreement of thought and reality; eventual verification; and consistency of thought with itself.”

The last of these alleged “concepts” is most revealing concerning the perversion in the meaning of words by those in the courts today – “consistency of thought with itself”. Let’s see, by this definition, if one says the same thing consistently, it must be the truth or if two or more individuals say the same thing, it must be the truth. How many times have you heard someone in government, or elsewhere, say: “That is your truth”.

Now this statement by many attorneys and judges makes sense. Anything you wish to be truth, simply say it often enough or get others to say it. No wonder there is no such thing as “perjury” today. Or, as we are often told, “perjury is nearly impossible to prove today”. All alleged “traffic citations”, alleged “arrest warrant affidavits”, and documents filed by attorneys, for example, are verified by the use of a statute “Pa. C.S.A. Title 18, Section 4904 – relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities”. This is not under “penalty of perjury”, a requirement for a lawful affidavit, which must also, by law, be true, correct and complete, or certain.

Clearly, the Black’s Law Dictionary definition for the word “truth” (which dates only back to the Third Edition of Black’s, first published in 1932 A.D.) is not the actual definition of this word. For the actual meaning, we can turn to a standard English dictionary of today, such as the American Heritage Dictionary, which defines the word “truth” as:
1. Conformity to knowledge, fact, actuality, or logic.
2. Fidelity to an original or standard.
3. Reality, actuality.
4. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
5. Sincerity; integrity; honesty.

These definitions are clearly quite different from the definition for the word “truth” found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. However, Black’s defines the word “true” on page 1508 as:
“Conformity to fact; correct; actual; genuine; honest; in one sense, that only is “true” which is conformable is “untrue” which does not express things exactly as they are. But in another and broader sense the word “true” is often used as a synonym of “honest”, “sincere”, not “fraudulent.”

Here in the first “sense” we see that the Black’s Law Dictionary conforms to the definition that is commonly understood. But in a “broader sense” its definition becomes vague and not absolute. This “broader sense” meaning, like the alleged definition in Black’s for the word “truth”, is, at a minimum, intentional “wordsmithing” and trickery.

The actual definition of the word “truth” can best be found in the 1828 A.D. American Dictionary of the English Language written by founding father Noah Webster. This early American dictionary was written in the language used and understood by the people who wrote and ratified both the original 1776 A.D. Constitution for Pennsylvania and the organic 1788 A.D. Constitution for the United States of America and its 1791 A.D. “Bill of Rights”. There are 13 definitions for the word “truth” in the 1828 A.D. Noah Webster Dictionary. A few of these definitions are:
1. Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be. The truth of history constitutes its whole value. We rely on the truth of the scriptural prophecies.
My mouth shall speak truth Prov. viii
Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth’ John xvii”; and
2. True state of fact or things. The duty of a court of justice is to discover the truth. Witnesses are sworn to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”; and
11. The truth of God, is his veracity and faithfulness. Ps. lxxi”
Or his revealed will. I have walked in thy truth. Ps. xxvi.”; and
12. Jesus Christ is called the truth. John xiv.”

Notice that the authority for these definitions is, to a large extent, the Old and New Testament of the Holy Bible, King James version. The Holy Bible is, and always has been, the true basis of lawful laws in Pennsylvania and in the United States of America. (Blackstone’s Commentaries – “Of the Nature of Laws in General” Vol. I, Section II, 1758 A.D.)

Law, to the greatest degree, is the science of the use of words. As Congressman Rarick stated (in part) in the June 13, 1967 House Congressional Record on page 15641:
“Through the cooperation of intellectual education, we have subjected ourselves to accept destructive use and meaning of words and phrases. We blindly accept new meanings and changed values to alter our traditional thoughts.”

Clearly, the perverted and destructive meaning of the word “truth” found in Black’s Law Dictionary is intentionally false. It is fraudulent, and thus cannot be used lawfully in any court of justice or anywhere else. This specific fraud provokes the question: Are the courts of today courts of justice based on Biblical and constitutional authority? It also provokes the broader question: Is today’s Pennsylvania’s government a constitutional government at all? The overwhelming factual evidence proves that the only true answer to both of these questions is an emphatic – NO!

Words, like everything else in government and particularly in a court, mean something very specific. To not know the meaning of words, as used by attorneys and judges, can be very destructive. Most attorneys, judges and others in today’s de facto governments, contrary to their solemn oath of office, will often not tell you the truth. Question everything. Only act on what you understand, believe in and are prepared to defend. The truth is written down and available.

All you, or anyone, must do is truly and objectively search for it.

CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

There is considerable historical evidence that in the early years of the Union, the word “commerce” was understood to encompass trade, and the intercourse, traffic, or exchange of goods; in short, “the activities of buying and selling that come after production and before the goods come to rest.”

In a frequently cited law review article, one Constitutional scholar has painstakingly tallied each appearance of the word “commerce” in Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist Papers, and discovered that in none of the ninety-seven appearances of that term is it ever used to refer unambiguously to activity beyond trade or exchange.

There is no doubt historically that the primary purpose behind the Commerce Clause was to give Congress power to regulate commerce so that it could eliminate the trade restrictions and barriers by and between the states that had existed under the Articles of Confederation. Such obstructions to commerce were destructive to the Union and believed to be precursors to war.

The Supreme Court has explained this rationale, “When victory relieved the Colonies from the pressure for solidarity that war had exerted, a drift toward anarchy and commercial warfare between states began. Each state would legislate according to its estimate of its own interests, the importance of its own products, and the local advantages or disadvantages of its position in a political or commercial view. This came to threaten at once the peace and safety of the Union. The sole purpose for which Virginia initiated the movement which ultimately produced the Constitution was to take into consideration the trade of the United States; to examine the relative situations and trade of the said states; to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulation may be necessary to their common interest and their permanent harmony and for that purpose the General Assembly of Virginia in January of 1786 named commissioners and proposed their meeting with those from other states.

The desire of the Forefathers to federalize regulation of foreign and interstate commerce stands in sharp contrast to their jealous preservation of power over their internal affairs. No other federal power was so universally assumed to be necessary, no other state power was so readily relinquished. There was no desire to authorize federal interference with social conditions or legal institutions of the states. Even the Bill of Rights amendments were framed only as a limitation upon the powers of Congress. The states were quite content with their several and diverse controls over most matters but, as Madison has indicated, “want of a general power over Commerce led to an exercise of this power separately, by the States, which not only proved abortive, but engendered rival, conflicting and angry regulations.”

The power under the Commerce Clause was intended to (and must) remain limited to the trade or exchange of goods, and be confined to the task of eliminating trade barriers erected by and between the states. The drafters of the Constitution were aware that they were preparing an instrument for the ages, not one suited only for the exigencies of that particular time.

County Sheriff Brigades of Pennsylvania, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

“It is appropriate that the Centennial observance of the Conference coincides with the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights. The concluding article of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, epitomizes the federal system the Constitution created. It reserves to the states “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states …” Because of this limitation, implicit in the original Constitution, nearly all private law – contracts, negotiable instruments, business organizations, marriage and divorce, for example – and most areas of criminal law, are left for definition and regulation by the legislatures and courts of the several states. For 200 years this autonomy of the States has been enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. For the nation’s first 100 years, this system of legal diversity worked fairly well, although in one sense the Civil War grew out of the decidedly non-uniform state law concerning slavery. But after that war, as the nation came together again, moved westward, expanded its borders, began to industrialize, and acquired the means of transcontinental travel, the need for a common, predictable, nation-wide legal system became crucial. There were at least two methods for unifying the legal systems of the states. State law could be preempted by the Federal Government through repeal of the Tenth Amendment, or by expansive interpretation of the commerce clause and other expressed powers delegated to Congress. Alternatively, the states could create a forum and a vehicle by which they could voluntarily agree to develop, and then separately adopt, uniform legislation on important subjects of common concern. That was the path chosen in 1891 when the Conference was conceived. It is probably not coincidence that the origin of the Conference occurred during the Centennial celebration for the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment.”

Source: Pages 3 and 4 of  “A CENTURY OF SERVICE – A CENTENNIAL HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS” – written by Walter P. Armstrong, Jr., published by West Publishing Company in 1991.  (No ISBN provided)

A state constitution is the supreme written will of the people of a state regarding the framework for their government and is subject only to the limitations found in the Federal Constitution.  It is the basic and supreme law of a state.  It must be interpreted and given effect as the paramount law of the state, according to the spirit and intent of its framers. State constitutions derive their force, not from the conventions which framed them, but from the people who ratified them, and the intent to be arrived at when ascertaining the meaning of constitutional provisions is that of the people.

A state constitution declares general principles or policies and establishes a foundation for the law and the government, and is the direct and basic expression of the sovereign will. It is the mandate of a sovereign people to its servants and representatives, and no one of them has a right to ignore or disregard its mandates; the legislature, the executive officers, and the judiciary cannot lawfully act beyond its limitations. Thus, it is also the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and officers of government with respect to all matters covered by it, and must control as it is written until it is changed by the authority which established it.

While the text of a state constitution must always be the primary guide to the purpose of a constitutional provision, it must be interpreted in a principled way that takes into account the history, structure, and underlying values of the document. Among the various interests that state governments seek to protect and promote, those interests represented by the state constitution are paramount to legislative ones, and thus no function of government can be discharged in disregard of or in opposition to the fundamental law.

Constitutional provisions control in any case of conflict with lesser laws, such as statutes, local ordinances, or administrative regulations. Thus, acts passed by the legislature inconsistent therewith are invalid. Neither an emergency nor economic necessity justifies a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantees, nor can the common law or public policy considerations override  constitutional mandates. It is the obvious duty of the legislature to act in subordination to the state constitution, for with reference to the subjects upon which the constitution assumes to speak, its declarations and necessary implications are conclusive upon the legislature. Thus, constitutional provisions prevent the enactment of any law which extinguishes or limits the powers conferred by the constitution.

A state constitution is equally binding on the political subdivisions and courts of the state, and on every department and officer and every citizen. Any attempt to do that which is proscribed in any manner other than that prescribed or to do that which is prohibited is repugnant to that supreme and paramount law and is invalid.

It is unconstitutional to require and/or issue a “permit” to carry a concealed weapon!

Question: Generally, does a Citizen need a “Permit” or a “License” to exercise a constitutionally protected, secured and guaranteed Right?

First consider the definitions of the words: “Permit” and “License” found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, which states, in part for each word, the following:

Permit:  In general, any document which grants a person the right to do something. A license or grant of authority to do a thing.  …  A written license or warrant, issued by a person in authority, empowering the grantee to do some act not forbidden by law, but not allowable without authority.

License:  The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowable.  … A license is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but is a mere personal permit.

Therefore, when someone applies to government for a “permit” or “license”, he or she is saying that they wish to do something that is unlawful or illegal and to do something that cannot be done without government’s permission. This request admits that the government, as licensor, has authority or jurisdiction over the person, as licensee, and over the subject of the application.

Furthermore, the licensee waives their constitutional protections; admits that they will follow all of the statutes, codes, regulations, rules, etc., that exist, and those that will be created in the future, with respect to the requested “permit” or “license”; and that if they are cited for a violation of the said statutes, codes, etc., they are guilty unless they can prove either they did not do that which they are accused of doing, or the citation contains one or more substantive errors.  This is not a right, but rather a privilege given by those in government. What the government gives, the government can take away!

But, if a natural person has a constitutionally secured, protected and guaranty right, he or she does not need government’s permission to exercise that right and government is prohibited from creating any restrictions on the lawful exercise of that right by a free Citizen. The exercise of a right cannot be converted into a crime.  Further, if a natural person is tricked into applying for, or accepting a “permit” or “license” concerning a God given and/or constitutionally protected right, those involved in the trickery commit, at a minimum, fraud.

The Black’s Law Dictionary definition for the word “Fraud” is, in part: “An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right.  A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture.”

So, for example, requiring a Citizen of Pennsylvania to obtain a “permit” to carry a gun concealed is prohibited by Article I, Section 21, Right to Bear Arms, of the “Declaration of Rights” in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This Section states: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” This means exactly what it says and needs no additional interpretation and/or “construction”.

Furthermore, Article I, Section 25, Reservation of Powers in People, of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: “To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.”  (See Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. 79, 80, 91 & 92 (1903))

Therefore, passing such an alleged “gun control law” at any level of government is unconstitutional and those involved in this prohibited activity have committed and/or are committing multiple serious crimes and have violated and/or are violating their solemn constitutional “oath of office”.

It is the constitutional duty and responsibility of all those in government to read, study, understand and always strictly “support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United State and the Constitution of this Commonwealth ….” Please perform your official duties and responsibilities with fidelity at all times!

County Sheriff Brigades of Pennsylvania, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

The first amendment to the US Constitution states in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”  Article I, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania Constitution states in part, “…no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience….”

Court opinions have created the following criteria with respect to religious freedom: For a free exercise claim to have any chance of success, two things must first be established.  First, it must be shown that the religious belief allegedly burdened by the government is central to one’s religious beliefs. Second, it must be shown that the religious belief that is allegedly burdened is sincerely held.  Once a good faith belief is established, the court’s inquiry should end:  there should be no attempt to determine whether the belief is true.

Since passage of the Real ID Act of 2005, PennDOT consistently refuses to issue a driver’s license to individuals who do not have a Social Security Number (SSN) because of their religious belief based on several scriptural passages. The state is violating Article I, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania Constitution because the driver’s license has become the de facto ID card needed to open a bank account, travel on an airline, or exercise other rights.  In other words, it no longer just applies to one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle or know the “rules of the road.” Many individuals who do not have a SSN do have a tax ID number. PennDOT has turned a right to open a checking account or fly on a domestic airline into a privilege, requiring one to have a SSN, which, among other things, violates religious beliefs of many citizens.

Maybe operating the “conveyance of the day” to exercise their right to travel without permission from government is the only option left. “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness  and safety.  It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”  [Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784, 787; Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579,583]

County Sheriff Brigades of Pennsylvania, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

1. Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.

2. In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.

3. A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the “Fourteenth Amendment.”

4. Congress — which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate — did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.

5. The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to “ratify” under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.

6. Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was “inseparable” and “indivisible.” After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be “entitled to representation in Congress.”

7. Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the “Fourteenth Amendment,” took an unprecedented step. No such right — to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment — is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.

8. President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.

9. Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various “ratifications” of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State “to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification.” He added that the amendment was valid “if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States.” This was a very big “if.” It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced “ratification” by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey – - two Northern States — was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.

10. The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 — three months after the Secretary’s proclamation was issued — passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the “Fourteenth Amendment” had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the “ratifications” in the Southern States were “usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void” and that, “until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment.”

What do the historians say about all this?  W. E. Woodward, in his famous work, “A New American History?” published in 1936, says, “To get a clear idea of the succession of events let us review [President Andrew] Johnson’s actions in respect to the ex-Confederate States. In May, 1865, he issued a Proclamation of Amnesty to former rebels. Then he established provisional governments in all the Southern States. They were instructed to call Constitutional Conventions. They did. New State governments were elected. White men only had the suffrage. The Fifteenth Amendment establishing equal voting rights had not yet been passed. Senators and Representatives were chosen, but when they appeared at the opening of Congress they were refused admission. The State governments, however, continued to function during 1866.”

In the early days of 1867, Thaddeus Stevens brought in, as chairman of the House Reconstruction Committee, a bill that proposed to sweep all the Southern State governments into the wastebasket. The South was to be put under military rule. The bill passed. It was vetoed by Johnson and passed again over his veto. In the Senate it was amended in such fashion that any State could escape from military rule and be restored to its full rights by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment and admitting black, as well as white, men to the polls. In challenging its constitutionality, President Andrew Johnson said in his veto message, “I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope and object without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive of those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure.”

Many historians have applauded Johnson’s words. Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager wrote in their book, “The Growth of the American Republic”, “Johnson returned the bill with a scorching message arguing the unconstitutionality of the whole thing, and most impartial students have agreed with his reasoning.” James Truslow Adams, another noted historian, writes in his “History of the United States”, “The Supreme Court had decided three months earlier, in the Milligan case, … that military courts were unconstitutional except under such war conditions as might make the operation of civil courts impossible, but the President pointed out in vain that practically the whole of the new legislation was unconstitutional. … There was even talk in Congress of impeaching the Supreme Court for its decisions! The legislature had run amok and was threatening both the Executive and the Judiciary.” Actually, President Johnson was impeached, but the move failed by one vote in the Senate.

The Supreme Court, in case after case, refused to judge on the illegal activities involved in “ratification.” It said simply that they were acts of the “political departments of the Government.” This, of course, was a convenient device of avoidance. The Court has adhered to that position ever since Reconstruction Days. Andrew C. McLaughlin, whose “Constitutional History of the United States” is a standard work, writes, “Can a State which is not a State and not recognized as such by Congress, perform the supreme duty of ratifying an amendment to the fundamental law? Or does a State — by congressional thinking — cease to be a State for some purposes but not for others? This is the tragic history of the so-called “Fourteenth Amendment” — a record that is a disgrace to free government and a “government of law.”

It is never too late to correct injustice. The people of America should have an opportunity to pass on an amendment to the Constitution that sets forth the right of the Federal Government to control education and regulate attendance at public schools either with federal power alone or concurrently with the States. That’s the honest way, the just way to deal with the problem of segregation or integration in the schools. Until such an amendment is adopted, the “Fourteenth Amendment” should be considered as null and void. There is only one supreme tribunal — it is the people themselves. Their sovereign will is expressed through the procedures set forth in the Constitution itself.

by David Lawrence
U.S. News & World Report – September 27, 1957