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

President Obama’s EO 13575 reads in part:

The Executive Order references “sustainable rural communities,” which is a reference to “sustainable development” – the nomenclature for the United Nations’ Agenda 21 program.

The term “sustainable development” was popularized in the now often-cited 1987 United Nations report, entitled Our Common Future, released by the Brundtland Commission. Chaired by its namesake — Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Director-General of the World Health Organization and the Vice President of the World Socialist Party, the Brundtland Commission defined “sustainable development” as:

This became the central theme of the United Nations’ 1992 Earth Summit, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where the UN unveiled its program on sustainable development: Agenda 21, signed on to by 178 world leaders including then-President George H. W. Bush.

Sustainable Development is the United Nations’ Agenda 21 program, which calls for the government to curtail your freedom to travel as you please, own a gas-powered car, live in suburban or rural areas, determine the number of children you may have, determine the “rates of harvest” of farms and fisheries, eliminate your private property rights through eminent domain, and increase the price on goods and services through artificial shortages and new consumer taxes.

Maurice Strong, the Secretary-General of the United Nations 1992 Earth Summit had this to say about sustainable development:

Since Agenda 21 was not an official treaty it did not require ratification by the U.S. Senate and has instead penetrated the American heartland and coastal regions through the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), which now prefers to be known as Local Governments for Sustainability.

ICLEI was founded in 1990, as the ‘International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives,’ at the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, held at the United Nations in New York City. According to its website, ICLEI describes itself as “an association of over 1220 local government Members who are committed to sustainable development.” Spanning over “70 different countries and representing more than 569,885,000 people,” ICLEI facilitates local governments in the implementation of UN Local Agenda 21.

You can find out if your local government is member by taking the following three-click challenge:

• Type WWW.ICLEI.ORG on your web browser & click go
• On the top bar menu of the website click on “Members”
• On the left side column click on “Global Members”

Scroll down to the United States of America, or other country of your choosing, and see if your local town or city is listed. If listed then you will know you’re a member, but if not, do not celebrate just yet; your local government may already be implementing Agenda 21 and sustainable development.

Some buzz words to look out for in your local community are mentions of “smart equity,” “smart codes,” “smart growth,” “sustainable consumption,” “sustainable development,” “sustainable land use,” and “open space.” These terms are normally associated with your local government’s board, committee, or department of “sustainability” or “redevelopment.”

These agencies are usually comprised of their own staff and governing board, appointed by your local government. You might not be aware of this because the establishment of such an agency would have likely occurred without your vote or consent and is now passing ordnances and regulations affecting your livelihood, family, home, and property.

Using ICLEI computer software and smart growth models, a host of new regulations and new zoning laws are implemented by these agencies. One such commonly used model lays out the following new law:

In the publication, Building a More Sustainable Future in Wisconsin, published by the University of Wisconsin-Extension Sustainability Team, it recommends and promotes:

The reason for this disregard for private property rights is due to the United Nation’s view on private property. According to “Section 11.2.3.1.3 Property rights and the use of biological resources” of Global Biodiversity Assessment (1996), published for the United Nations Environment Programme:

This interpretation of property rights is a far cry from the Founding Fathers. President George Washington said, “Private property and freedom are inseparable.” His successor, President John Adams said that “Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.”

The forefathers of this nation understood that without property rights there could not be freedom and individual liberty; the state can control the people so long as the people are on government-controlled land. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes no recognition or mention of this fundamental right.

If Agenda 21 is fully implemented it will eventual terminate your right to own property and once that fundamental right is lost tyranny is ripe to flourish. Your ability to live the lifestyle you desire, your freedom to pursue and reach the American dream of owning a large home and raising a family, and the means to travel as you see fit are all at jeopardy so long as your local government adheres to the principles and protocols of Agenda 21 and sustainable development.

You can help stop this United Nations’ environmental juggernaut by contacting your State Representative and State Senator and encouraging them to cease funding and oppose all measures for sustainable development.

You should also work with your local officials to withdraw from ICLEI, if your local government is a member, and to cease implementation of sustainable development measures. Click here for further resources for doing this.

Thanks,

Your friends at The John Birch Society

Place: Church of Christ, 305 N. Reading Rd. Ephrata Pa. 17522

The meetings commenced with a prayer by Sam Yoder.
The meetings began at approximately 6:30 PM.
The agenda for the meetings were the following two excellent documentaries.

The Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. About a hero who stood on principles and values against the church and the Nazi Regime during the 1930′s and 1940′s. It is needed demonstration and inspiration for us on how we need to stand strong against the same evil oppression today. There is a fantastic movie about him on Netflix. It is highly recommended for a home or neighborhood movie night.

“The Money Masters” is a documentary exposing the Federal Reserve and the world banking system. Very educational. Get this vital information to as many people as you can. Especially, young people who constitute the next generation of Americans.

The meetings were adjourned at approximately 9 PM.

The meeting took place at Church of Christ, 305 N. Reading Rd. Ephrata Pa. 17522.

Meeting commenced at 6:45 PM.

Pastor Sam Yoder opened the meeting with prayer.

A documentary was presented entitled “Loose Change”. It is controversial video about the possibility of a government conspiracy behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The video was followed by very interesting discussion.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM.

The meeting took place at Church of Christ, 305 N. Reading Rd. Ephrata Pa. 17522

The meeting commenced 6:30 PM.

David Barganier lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance and Pastor Sam Yoder opened the meeting with prayer.

David Barganier gave a thorough tour of the LCSB website and introduced the group to all of the various tools and features available on the site.

William Taylor Reil, Co-Founder and C0-Director of the County Sheriff Brigades of Pennsylvania, lead a very interesting discussion on the topic of State Nullification. The articles and links introduced to the group are available on our website under the tag “Nullification”.

The group had a very interesting discussion the topics of the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM