Author Archives: Jasonthepatriot

Amending the US Constitution from the State level.

St. George Tucker was a lawyer, teacher, poet, essayist, inventor, and judge. One of the most influential jurists and legal scholars in the early years of the United States, he sat on three courts in Virginia: the General Court (1789–1804), the Court of Appeals (1804–1811), and the U.S. District Court for the District of Virginia (and later the Eastern District of Virginia) (1813–1825). He also served as rector (1789–1790) and professor of law (1790–1804) at the College of William and Mary. His five-volume edition of Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in 1803, was the first major treatise on American law. Born in Bermuda, Tucker studied law as an apprentice to George Wythe in Williamsburg, gaining admission to the bar in 1774. During the American Revolution (1775–1783) he smuggled needed supplies into Virginia and fought under Nathanael Greene at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse (1781) and under George Washington at the siege of Yorktown (1781). After the war he practiced in the county courts before being elevated to a judgeship. At William and Mary, he advocated the study of law as an academic discipline, and in 1796 he published A Dissertation on Slavery, his plan to gradually abolish slavery in Virginia. The General Assembly ignored it. Tucker married twice and had five surviving children, including the jurist and congressman Henry St. George Tucker and the writer and states’ rights advocate Nathaniel Beverley Tucker. He was also good friends with James Madison (Father of the Constitution), and many of his works were used in the drafting of the US Constitution in 1787. In fact every major law school from coast to coast used his law books for most of the nineteenth century.

The reason as to why I am offering up this little bit of historical information is because, he stated that another method for amending the US Constitution was to ratify constitutional amendments from the individual State conventions, and then submit those amendments up to the Congress to vote on them. Unlike most people today thinking that every must start from the Congress and filter down to the State levels. This way of thinking is a complete distortion on our history and our Law as a Nation! He taught this on page 132 of his book titled Views of the Constitution of the United States, concerning the rights of the States.

“And to propose amendments to the federal constitution”

Was he promoting that the States call for a one ambiguous Constitutional convention? Absolutely not! Even though that is yet another method for amending the US Constitution. He was referring to the same method that was used when ratifying all ten of the Bill of Rights during the span of 1787 through 1789.

If we fast forward to modern days. The National Archives works with the Congress for any constitutional amendment that is to be sent out to the States. They only have on record of the two procedures when it comes to amending the Constitution, not three like the founders envisioned. Like what was done during the process in 1787-1789. In fact they are the ones that prepares all of the information when new amendments are passed by the Congress or when a Constitutional Convention is to be called.

In Utah and I only can presume other States has the similar code on the books for State ratifying conventions. It is codified for when the Congress proposes new constitutional amendments, and not when the State wants to amend the constitution. Why? Aren’t we a Republic of 50 soverign States that created the federal government? Aren’t we a partner in upholding and defending the Constitution? This legislation below actually changes the State of Utah’s process for ratifying new constitutional amendments through a State Ratifying convention. I am also attaching this author’s idea for the 28th amendment. The complete repeal of the 17th amendment. Finally restoring States rights the way that the Founders had envisioned.


Ratification methods of Amending the US Constitution

Procedures when the State of Utah and or the Congress of the United States:

Proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and directs that the amendment be ratified by conventions in each state.

If Congress prescribes the manner in which the conventions shall be constituted and  does not accept those states that have established procedures for constituting ratification conventions:

(a)        this chapter is inoperative;

(b)       the convention shall be constituted and shall operate as the congressional resolution or Act of Congress directs; and

(c)        all state officers who are authorized or directed to take any action to constitute a ratification convention in Utah shall do so.

The governor, shall:

(a)        issue a proclamation establishing the date of an election to elect 58 delegates to Utah’s ratification convention from the state at large; two delegates from each county.

(b)       ensure that the election is held at least as soon as the next regular general election occurring more than three months after the amendment has been proposed by Congress; and

(c)        either call a special election or schedule the election to be held at the same time as a regular or municipal general election.

(2)        Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, the election shall be conducted according to the procedures for a regular general election contained in this title.

Delegates — Candidacy — Qualifications — Nominating procedures.

(1)        Candidates for the office of delegate to the ratification convention shall be citizens, residents of Utah, and at least 21 years old.

(2)        Persons wishing to be delegates to the ratification convention shall:

(a)        circulate a nominating petition meeting the requirements of this section; and

(b)       obtain the signature of at least 100 registered voters.

(3)        (a)        A single nominating petition may nominate any number of candidates up to 58, the total number of delegates to be elected.

(b)       Nominating petitions may not contain anything identifying a candidate’s party or political affiliation.

(c)        Each nominating petition shall contain a written statement signed by each nominee, indicating either that the candidate will:

(i)         vote for ratification of the proposed amendment; or

(ii)        vote against ratification of the proposed amendment.

(d)       A nominating petition containing the names of more than one nominee may not contain the name of any nominee whose stated position in the nominating petition is inconsistent with that of any other nominee listed in the petition.

(4)        (a)        Candidates shall file their nominating petitions with the lieutenant governor at least 40 days before the proclaimed date of the election.

(b)       Within 10 days after the last day for filing the petitions, the lieutenant governor shall:

(i)         declare nominated the 58 nominees in favor of ratification and the 58 nominees against ratification whose nominating petitions have been signed by the largest number of registered voters;

(ii)        decide any ties by lot drawn by the lieutenant governor; and

(iii)       certify the nominated candidates of each group to the county clerk of each county within the state.

20A-15-104.  Ballot — Form — Manner of marking and voting.

(1)        The requirements of this section govern the form of the ballot and the specific procedures for electing delegates to the ratification convention.

(2)        Each county clerk shall ensure that the ballot to select delegates to the ratification convention:

(a)        is separate from and printed on different color stock than any other ballot to be used at the same election;

(b)       contains the following information in this order:

(i)         the text of the proposed amendment;

(ii)        instructions to the voter;

(iii)       three perpendicular columns of equal width;

(iv)       at the head of the first perpendicular column, in plain type, the words “For Ratification of Proposed Change in Constitution of the United States”;

(v)        at the head of the second perpendicular column, in plain type, the words “Against Ratification of Proposed Change in Constitution of the United States”;

(vi)       no heading or names at the head of the third perpendicular column;

(vii)      in the column headed “For Ratification of Proposed Change in Constitution of the United States,” the names of the nominees nominated as in favor of ratification;

(viii)     in the column headed “Against Ratification of Proposed Change in Constitution of the United States,” the names of the nominees nominated as against ratification; and

(ix)       in the column without heading, spaces permitting the voter to write in other names; and

(c)        is arranged so that the voter may, by making a single mark, vote for the entire group of nominees whose names are contained in any column.

(3)        Each county clerk shall ensure that the ballot to select delegates to the ratification convention is in substantially the following form: each county shall only vote for the two that is being nominated for their county.

“OFFICIAL BALLOT for delegates to convention to ratify or reject proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Congress, and or the State of Utah has proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that provides: (insert here the text of the proposed amendment).

The Congress, and or the State of Utah has also directed that the proposed amendment be ratified by conventions in the states.

INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS

Only can vote for the two candidates that would represent their county.

To vote for all candidates in favor of ratification, or for all candidates against ratification, make a cross-mark in the CIRCLE at the head of the list of candidates for whom you wish to vote. If you do this, make no other mark.

To vote for an individual candidate, make a cross-mark in the SQUARE immediately adjacent to the name.

To vote for a person other than candidates listed on the ballot, write in the person’s name in blank column.

For ratification of proposed change in Constitution of the United States.

(Name of Candidate) ____________________________________________

Against ratification of proposed change in Constitution of the United States.

(Name of Candidate) ____________________________________________”

(4)        If the election of delegates to the ratification convention is held at the same time as the regular general election, the county clerk shall:

(a)        give the same ballot number to a regular general election ballot and a ballot to elect delegates to a ratification convention;

(b)       direct the election judges to:

(i)         hand to each voter the general election ballot and the ratification convention ballot with identical ballot numbers;

(ii)        instruct the voter to mark each ballot and deposit each ballot in the ballot box; and

(iii)       mark any ballot “void” that the voter declines to use and return it to the county clerk.

(5)        Each voter shall indicate his choice by making one or more cross-marks in the appropriate spaces provided on the ballot.

Poll watchers.

(1)        If one or more of the candidates listed upon the official ballot under the heading “For Ratification of Proposed Change in Constitution of the United States” recommends persons to act as poll watchers, the county legislative body shall designate those persons to act as poll watchers for that group at each polling place within the county.

(2)        If one or more of the candidates listed upon the official ballot under the heading “Against Ratification of Proposed Change in Constitution of the United States” recommends persons to act as poll watchers, the county legislative body shall designate those persons to act as poll watchers for that group at each polling place within the county.

Convening — Vacancies — Election of officers — Journal of proceedings.

(1)        The delegates to the convention shall convene at the state capitol at noon on the 28th day after their election to pass upon the question of whether or not the proposed amendment shall be ratified.

(2)        (a)        If, at the time the convention convenes, there is a vacancy in the convention, the delegates from the group from which the delegate creating the vacancy was elected shall, by majority vote, appoint a person to fill the vacancy.

(b)       If the convention contains no other delegates from the group from which the delegate creating the vacancy was elected, the governor shall appoint a person to fill the vacancy.

(3)        The convention may:

(a)        elect a president, secretary, and other officers; and

(b)       adopt its own rules, for ratification purposes only.

(4)        The convention shall:

(a)        keep a journal of its proceedings;

(b)       record in the journal the vote of each delegate on the question of ratification of the proposed amendment; and

(c)        file the journal with the lieutenant governor after the convention adjourns.

(5)        (a)        Delegates to the ratification convention shall:

(i)         serve without pay;

(ii)        receive a per diem of $25 per day while the convention is in session; and

(iii)       receive mileage at the rate of 3 dollars per mile for the distance necessarily traveled in going to and returning from the place of meeting by the most usual route.

(b)       The lieutenant governor shall pay the per diem and mileage, together with the necessary expenses of the convention for printing and stenographic services, from the state treasury.

(1)        If the convention agrees, by vote of a majority of the total number of delegates, to ratify the proposed amendment, the president and secretary of the convention shall:

(a)        prepare and sign a certificate to that effect; and

(b)       transmit it to the lieutenant governor.

(2)        Upon receipt of a ratification certificate, the lieutenant governor shall transmit the certificate under the great seal of the state to the Secretary of State of the United States.

(3)         If the State proposes and ratifies the Constitutional amendment. Instead of the Lieutenant Governor transmitting the certificate under the great seal of the state to the Secretary of State of the United States. He shall submit that certificate under the great seal of the state to the rest of the fifty states of the United States for them to ratify the same changes. Only after when 3/4rs of the states have fully ratified the proposed changes, the proposed changes shall be submitted to the  National Archives under the great seal of the state for the Congress to vote on the proposed ratification changes.

 

 

28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

“The Repeal of the 17th Amendment”

 

  1. The 17th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
  2. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state,chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

  1. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
  2. The article shall be in operative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The Benefits of Electing an Independent?

As an Independent American I am concerned at our dysfunctional State legislature. I am concerned about my district (senate Dist. 16) with a 16 year incumbent (Curt Bramble) with a 37 percent conservative ranking from Grassroots Index equaling an  ‘F’ grade for his lifetime voting record.

 

Whether it is Curt Bramble’s four-month abortion bill from the 2016 session, or the SB54 fiasco from 2014 session trying to short circuit the ‘Count My Vote’ movement and the grassroots move to open primaries to more candidates, or his vote for SB296 in 2015 to allow gender neutral showers, locker rooms or bathrooms. Bramble hasn’t met a fee or a tax that he hasn’t liked and voted for in his 16 years. What is a good man suppose to do, if not actively run against such a professional politician.

 

I understand Bramble is a very powerful man with 16 years of power-building under his belt, as well as having held a seat on the National Board of Directors of the American Legislative Exchange Council.  Or his pushing for School Vouchers – which the Utah Voters defeated by 66%. Or the gerrymandering of his District in 2012 for political expediency.

 

But do we want a man so dismissive of the voters wishes, so isolated from the voter’s viewpoints and ‘knowing better’ than the voters, or not trusting the voters as to over-ride multiple referendum issues in the last few years (Count My Vote, Ethics Commission, etc.).

 

I am Jason Christensen running for the Utah State Senate seat for District 16 on the Independent American ticket as a leader with Constitutionally correct principles, because, as Edmond Burke said:  “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing.”

 

You may ask,  “ What good could an Independent American do in the State Senate and transform the Legislature into a functional body once again?”   It is simple, I could reach across the aisle to either Republicans or Democrats to get things done on Constitutionally sound and fiscally conservative issues.  I could reach across the aisle to both party members on Health Freedom issues, on  Privacy concerns, restoring due process of law (4th Amendment) and property right issues, on reforming election law in this state, campaign finance reform, state sovereignty, in restoring our second amendment rights, as well; thereby transforming the dysfunctional body into a more functional and correctly principled body of legislators.  I can bring up concerns of individual citizens such as water issues with the NSA and Facebook server farm outrageous water usage, or state tax reform and serious budget cuts, even zero-based budgeting?  Afterall, zero-based budgeting is good for every Utah household and why not apply it to state agencies and the state legislature?

 

This is the year to elect an Independent American – who is the lone challenger to a 16 year incumbent – instead of voting for a professional politican who has already had 16 years in the job.  As Orrin Hatch said in 1978,  “12 IS ENOUGH!”

 

Utah’s Biggest Tax Hike

TO:  Utah Media Outlets                                                              From:   Jason Christensen’s Campaign

IAP Candidate for Utah Senate, Dist. 16

 

Press Release for IMMEDIATE Release  as of  31 Aug 2016

 

Gas Tax Fiasco to be ‘fixed’ in Special Session

 

Once again the Utah Legislature, in its collective wisdom, has mucked this up!  Last year they raised the gas tax by about a nickel a gallon, for the first time in 19 years  –  according to reports -, promising the cities and counties a “boost in revenue” of about “17.5 percent this year.”  Big surprise, it  didn’t happen!

 

Promising anything and not being able to deliver the promise is essentially a LIE!  And our Legislature is exceptionally adept at continuing to lie to voters and still get re-elected.  This may be the one that catches Wayne Neiderhauser, Johnny Anderson, Greg Hughes and Company, et al.  This time, instead of lying to the students, teachers and parents of the state, to the voters who put them in office, they lied to their fellow elected officials of cities and county governments.   OOPS!

 

Midvale Mayor Joann Seghini is quoted as saying, instead of an increased “boost in revenue” this year, Midvale lost $71,215 (in a Salt Lake Tribune story, August 28, 2016, page B-1, by Lee Davidson).

 

The culprit was HB362, sponsored by retiring Rep. Johnny Anderson (R-Taylorsville) in 2015.  HB362 also allowed cities and counties to vote on Proposition 1`, the referendum which would supposedly “solve long festering” transportation problems and issues with the infrastructure.  Prop 1 failed.

 

Mayor Seghini also said, “My city [residents] voted for it [Prop 1], but Salt Lake County [voters] didn’t because they hate UTA [Utah Transit Authority],” so it failed, she said.  “We would have received $541,000 from it.  The loss of both of those impacted our ability to have a sustainable budget without a property tax increase.”

 

Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) says cities are being shortchanged by $8.5 million because of the legislature’s inept reformulations for the “B&C Road Fund,” the local share of state gasoline taxes.  But ULCT and the Association of Counties both worked on the calculations for the formulas.  “The calculations didn’t come out the way that they had hoped, so we made another adjustment to it in 2016,” Anderson is quoted as saying in the Tribune article.

 

The 2016 ‘legislative adjustment’ was in the form of HB60.  The ‘adjustment’ flipped things so the rural counties, with larger amounts of B&C road miles to maintain to benefit all state residents, “would see increases of about 82 percent” instead of the promised 17.5 percent.  The attorney for ULCT, Cameron Diehl, said the formula cuts the gas tax share of urban cities and towns.

 

“We are just trying to figure out a way to shift some of it back,”  said Lincoln Shurtz, a lobbyist for the Utah Association of Counties.  Both Diehl and Shurtz hope to present final calculations next month, in time for a special session in October to make the needed fixes.  Special Sessions cost taxpayers a minimum of $30,000, a costly ‘fix.’  Anyone wanna take a bet on efficacy of the fix?

 

Both Utah Senator Curt Bramble (R- Provo, District 16) and Rep. Kevin Stratton (R-Orem, District 48) voted for both HB362 and HB60 twice, like they can’t say ‘No’ to a tax increase!  This tax increase averaged an estimated $13 per $1000 out of citizen’s pockets.  The fiscal note to the bill states a business driving 12000 miles a year, with a vehicle making 25 miles per gallon, would pay an additional $24 a year.  A house valued at $250,000 could see an increase of $48 in 2016, due to this bill; because cities can now put additional taxes on either property tax notices or on each and every utility bill.

 

Jason Christensen’s solution to this morass of tax increases and costly additions is to scrap the whole bill and make actual serious cuts to pay for the B&C road maintenance as well as needful things in government. As the only challenger to the 16 year incumbent in Utah Senate District 16 race, and as a candidate on the Independent American Party ticket, Christensen is a proven principled conservative candidate.

Property Rights

Now is a season of confusing political interests and ideas. People want this special interest or that special interest, or one candidate has a different view and opinion than another candidate; all because of what maybe promised if a certain candidate is elected. What is a voter to do, especially during this season of confusing politics?

To make the best and educated decisions we only have to return to the basics! Those basic principles include God’s laws and the U.S. Constitution, which He gave to mankind to govern ourselves. The Constitution wasn’t anything really new, but was a continuance of the Mosaic Law, that God gave to the children of Israel, in order to govern themselves after leaving Egypt. Within these Sacred Laws we find such commandments as: “Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is they neighbor’s.” Both of these commandments deal with the right to be safe within one’s own property, safety to worship how one pleases, makes money as they please (intellectual property or ideas) as well as their physical property and money; the right to defend that property and all lives within that property.

We read in James Madison’s (the “Father of the Constitution”) National Gazette article (dated March 29, 1792) where he boldly declares that ideas, money, religious beliefs, as well as one’s physical property need to be protected at all costs; that this was government’s sole purpose. Then we read John Adam’s (one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence) 1787 writings to learn what is at stake at not protecting property rights.

          “Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other moveables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of man- kind as real as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of everything be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.”

Now let us look at the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution (Article 6 Section 2) and the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights).  The first amendment protects our free speech, association and freedom of conscience (religious liberty).  The second amendment protects all of our prop-erty rights, either against criminals, invaders from other lands, or even our own government.  It is our right to defend our property with whatever we see fit.  The third amendment prohibits the government at any level from quartering their troops (or government agents) within our property.  The fourth amendment prohibits government from seizing our property, and further declares that we must be safe within our property:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fifth Amendment deals with several aspects but only one effects property rights, the concept of eminent domain. This specifically addresses and even forces any level of govern-ment to pay ‘fair compensation for property’ that they need to purchase for necessary projects.  It is NOT a pass for government to seize and pay whatever they deem as ‘just’ for that property (that is proper ‘eminent domain’).  The property owner is at all times in control of the sale of his property, or should be.  This amendment guarantees this right.  (It also mentions grand juries, self incrimination, due process [as does the sixth amendment] and double jeopardy, too; but they don’t really deal with property, which is the subject of this paper.)

The seventh and eighth amendments protect our ideas and our money; ideas/money may be protected via a civil law suit, and they address a prohibition against excessive fees and punishments.

Utah Financial Security Act

Summery

 

With the looming financial crisis and national and state debt. With the threats from the national government and ultimatum of do this or do not receive our money. One must wonder what can be done, without simply complaining about the problem. If we look at the State of North Dakota. They have seen financial security, and a sustainable GDP for about the last one hundred years. As of recently they are ranked 16th in per capital income at $50,899. Their gross domestic product was 36 billion in 2013, and their GDP growth rate is at an average of 8%. Now let’s look at Utah. In 2005 we

had an average per capital income of $36,000. 82 billion GDP which is about 1% of the nation. So why do the citizens make far less than what our GDP is per year? The reason being is that we are truly addicted to the

federal money which always brings higher taxes and higher federal tyranny. We also pay more to the feds per year as well. So what is the solution, how can we fix this mess? Be more honest and fair with our citizens? How can we say no to the federal monies with strings attached? How can we keep more of what we earn? How can we lower taxes and fees, and still lower our debts here at home and at the national level? How can we fully practice the principle of Nullification? The solution is banking. Not the traditional form after the Federal Reserve banking system, but after the order of the old savings and loan sort of way. Where people may establish their own banks, their own regulations, and their own help meet for their customers, and eventually their own currency. Remember that this Great State of Utah is supposed to be a sovereign nation with equal footing with the national government and our neighboring States under the US Constitution. Below is the piece of legislation that will prepare the way for our future financial safety, and security.

Banking Bill of the State of Utah

Bill Authorizing the Establishment

Of Citizen Owned banks

In the State of Utah

 

An Act Declaring the Authorization of citizen banks in the State of Utah to Engage in the Banking Business and Establish a System of Banks outside of the Federal Reserve System.

 

This act is authorized according to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution:

 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

 

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Utah:

 

Section 1. For the purpose of encouraging and promoting banking to enable commerce and industry, these banks shall engage in the business of banking, and for that purpose shall, and hereby, establish a system of banks owned, controlled and operated by the citizens of the State of Utah under the authority the State of Utah.

 

Section 2.  These banks shall be properly registered in the State following the requirements established by the Department of Commerce and shall be required to comply with all of the established banking laws of the State as they are or shall be in the future.

 

Section 3. To accomplish the purposes of this Act, these banks will be required to establish a capital account of $ 1000 prior to opening to insure there are proper funds to safely and securely begin operations. At least 50% of that initial startup capital must be either Gold or Silver deposits, in accordance with the Utah Sound Money Act of 2010.

 

Section 4. To the end that there is proper experience the bank will hire a manager with ample banking experience.  This manager may appoint such subordinate officers and employees as he may judge expedient. He shall employ such contractors, architects, builders, attorneys, cashiers, tellers, clerks, accountants, and other experts, agents and servants such that in his judgment the interests of the citizens of the state will be secured.  He will define the duties, designate the titles, and fix the compensation and bonds of all such persons so engaged.  The total compensation of all managers and employees, together, with other expenditures for the operation and maintenance of the Bank, shall remain within the earnings and expenses normally paid to individuals assuming these or similar types of employment. All officers, and employees of the Bank engaged in its financial functions shall, before entering upon their duties, furnish good and sufficient bonds to the state in such amount and upon such conditions as are appropriate; but the bond of the Manager shall not be less than 1000 dollars. Such bonds shall be filed with the Secretary of State.

 

Section 5. These banks shall be opened and shall proceed to transact business whenever there shall be delivered appropriate bonds issued by law for such purpose. The funds procured by the negotiation and sale of such bonds is hereby designated and shall be known as the capital of said Bank.

 

Section 6. These banks are hereby authorized to perform any and all activities normally performed by any other banks within the normal banking requirements and laws of the State.

 

Section 7. The State of Utah recommends that all state, county, township, municipal and school district funds, all funds of all penal, educational and industrial institutions and all other public funds be, by the person having control of such funds, deposited in these banks.

 

Section 8. These banks may receive deposits from any source, including the United States Government and any foreign or domestic individual, Corporation, association, municipality, bank or government.

 

Section 9. All deposits in these banks are hereby guaranteed by the State. Income derived from these deposits shall be exempt from any taxes levied by any Utah State, County or Municipal government.

 

Section 10.  All profits of these banks remain in the State of Utah to assist the citizens and the governments of the state.

 

Section 11. As it is the State that guarantees the deposits of these banks it is hereby required that at least 10% of all profits be paid to the treasurer of the State of Utah.  This provision will compensate the State for the risk provided by the guarantee in Section 9.

 

Section 12. The chief bank of the citizens banking system, after being properly designated, will serve as a citizen’s bank reserve depositary and may perform the functions and render the services of a clearing house, including all facilities for providing domestic and foreign exchange, and may re-discount paper on such terms as are expedient.

 

Section 13. The State Banking Examiner shall personally or through deputy examiners visit these banks at least twice annually, and shall inspect and verify the assets in its possession and under its control, with sufficient thoroughness of investigation to ascertain with reasonable certainty whether the valuations are, correctly carried on its books. He shall investigate its methods of operation and accounting. He shall report the results of each such

Examination and investigation to the State Auditor as soon as practicable.

 

Section 14. All Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed.

 

Section 15. This Act is hereby declared to be an emergency measure and shall take effect and be in force immediately from and after its passage and approval.

 

 

Approved:

Right to Life Legislation

In the area of federalism, the States have an unequivocal right to have their own State Constitutions which coincides with the Federal Constitution, and the people of the individual States have an unequivocal right to amend those individual state constitutions. The US Constitution declares this statement to be a fact. In the tenth amendment we read:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

and the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution reads:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

One of the duties of the Federal government is to protect the right of the State and of the people to govern the individual States accordingly. As we read in Article Four Section Four:
“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.”
With this being said, on January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Roe v. Wade, a challenge to a Texas statute that made it a crime to perform an abortion.
If we read that last line “or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.” The high court clearly violated Article four Section four with this ruling/ For the simple fact that abortion is murder and creates domestic violence to the life of the unborn. They also violated the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the US Constitution, which simply states government’s job is to protect life.

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” –Preamble to the United States Constitution.
This ruling also violates ones religious views on abortion as well with government in recent years dictating how a mother is to give birth as well as her choices regarding the question “when a mother’s life is in danger”. We read in the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Which violates these six clauses with in the US Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the main intent in having government. As laid out in Article Six Section Two, which reads:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
They also violated their Oath of office as well, as mentioned in Article Six Section Three:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

With these blatant attacks by the Federal government upon the Law, it is the Duty of the States to Enforce the Law. Since it was the People that created the States and the States that created the Federal government. James Madison commonly known as the Father of the Constitution stated this regarding enforcing the Constitution against such abuses committed by the Federal government.

“The resolution, having taken this view of the federal compact, proceeds to infer, that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.”
“It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal, superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the. parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

Since we are Nullifying a Court opinion in order to enforce our own State Constitution as well as the Federal Constitution. I find it prudent to mention these comments from the opinion of the Supreme Court in the renowned court case Marbury vs. Madison which reads.

“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

In that same court opinion we read.
“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.”

An Act of the Legislature of the State of Utah to nullify the ruling of the United States Supreme Court, in the case Roe vs Wade.

RESOLVED, That the Legislature of the State of Utah, doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

RESOLVED, That the Legislature of the State of Utah. doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States of America. For these three legal documents defends the rights of all citizens, both born and unborn, both citizen and non-citizen. For our rights comes from our Creator, the same being that created both nature and this planet.

Resolved, That in this State of Utah, if any person has an abortion performed, or any person performs an abortion. This act shall be a first degree murder charge. The accused must have a 12 person jury of their peers in a court room of law.

Resolved, That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure its existence and the public happiness.

Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whomsoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress specific, enumerated powers; and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the act of Court, passed on the 20th day of December, is altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to act in this matter is not granted to the United States Government by the United States Constitution.

Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of Utah doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Resolved, That this Legislature doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former Articles of Confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy their meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the States by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.

Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings, including recent acts of the national legislative, executive and federal court decisions) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles call for immediate redress.

Resolved, That this Legislature doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the case of the ruling passed at the Federal Court in the jurisdiction of Utah; which exercises a power nowhere delegated to the federal government, and which subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; additionally, the act exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by two of the amendments thereto.

Resolved, That faithful to the United States Constitution, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore the State of Utah is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, the State of Utah, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the act before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Act, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That the State of Utah does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the aforementioned act, plainly declaring whether this act is or is not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with the State of Utah in considering the said act as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring this act void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither this act, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.

Resolved, That the good people of the State of Utah, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other States; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the Legislature of the State of Utah doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other States, in confidence that they will concur with this State in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the act aforesaid, is unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this State, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

Resolved, That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolution to the executive authority of each of the other States, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this State in the Congress of the United States.

Agreed to: —Date—

Statement Against the Proposed City Budget 6/16/15

In order to build for the future, we must build a solid foundation. How can we build this solid foundation off of tax/fee hikes? How can we build for the future by taking money from some just to give it to someone else? We understand that the people voted for a 39 million dollar debt on the new Recreation Center, but do they know of the interest attached to that debt which they did not vote for? Making the cost totaling a minimum of fifty million dollars? Isn’t that center paying for itself monthly and yearly? Why the need for a new RAP tax? The city for the last six years also has been running debts totaling millions on new city parks, all without a vote from the people!
We are not opposed to these things, just the manner that they are conducted. We shouldn’t levy burdensome debt for future generations, and even worse propose tax hikes down the road to pay for that debt! Isn’t a much wiser policy to save up for such projects? We should pay as we go! That is the American way!
Two years ago the administration pushed for a new road tax in order to pay for the roads, but yet in this proposed budget the administration is seeking additional monies to fund the roads. This road tax passed by the way. What roads have been repaired and or repaved?
These last six years the utility bill continues to go up and up and up, and yet in the administration’s proposed budget he wants to increase such rates yet again by as much as 20% and 80% within these next 6 years! Can the people truly afford this, especially since there has been an exodus from Provo? (Please see the Yahoo News article titled the fifteen fastest shrinking cities) There hasn’t been a tax or a fee increase that the current administration has not liked!
There is a line out there that says “Don’t talk to be about limited government, unless you’re willing to talk about taxes!” Meaning if we don’t raise taxes or if we cut taxes, then government is forced to cut itself naturally. Isn’t this a much wiser policy in order to build for the future? In order to grow the city?
Provo City candidates Jason Christensen for City Wide Council and Clinton Rhinehart for District 1 both think this way. They both believe if we adopt a city charter or otherwise known as a city constitution. We can as a city build this solid foundation for the future. They both see Provo becoming not only a shining light on a hill for this entire State of Utah to look at, but a Shining light up on a hill for the entire Nation to take notice.
In closing please vote NO on this utility bill hike. Vote NO on this proposed RAP tax. Vote NO on this proposed property tax hike. Let us move forward with the solutions that has been mentioned here, and let us all stand united in the cause of Liberty and make Provo shine like we all know that she can.

My Vision for a City Charter

This article is to lay out a plan of how we can rein in our local municipalities. For too long many cities have gone rogue and gun shot over the people’s most basic and fundamental rights and liberties. For example there are numerous scenarios of how these local governmental entities are utilizing the practice known as eminent domain, for certain politician’s “pet” projects. The city code within many cities has inflated to a point; where the citizens are penalized merely for a parked car or yards not kept in the precise manner that government wants. No matter what the story per scenario may or may not be. While blindly following a convoluted mess of ordinances upon ordinances and upon ordinances.
There are numerous reports of the police shooting family pets, throwing flash grenades in baby’s cribs, and yes even abusing the citizens on their own property. The citizens lack authority to build a simple wood shack, build an addition to their homes, or put up a fence without first getting permission from the city. Many municipalities love to tax and spend in the cover of darkness, by using their local utility bills. Many continue to levy tax upon tax upon the individual’s property tax bill, to cover their out of control spending. All of which is prophetically warned by the Father of the Constitution James Madison in his article titled “Property Rights” on March 29th of 1792 which reads.
“Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.”
In other articles and writings I have demonstrated previously that one has a God given right to own and to be safe with in one’s own property. With the unchecked powers by our own government and or local leaders, how then can we not only reign in, but assign a check upon these governmental entities? In the same article that James Madison wrote in March of 1792, elucidates us further:

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his.”
Here in Utah we have two forms of governance for municipalities. One is to establish the city as a corporation of the State, and the other way is too form a city charter. Here in Utah 99% of all cities are established as these city corporations, where they are controlled by the state legislature. The sole city that is not a corporation is Tooele City, whom has a city charter and is more independent from the State legislature. A lack of independence is one flaw in being established as a city corporation. Another flaw is that it opens the doors to tyrants to come into power with the mindset of revenue, and that the citizens do not have rights. Such is the case with the City of Provo where the city leadership praises the fact that the justice court generates an average of two million dollars a year, and the police department is used for revenue off the backs of the hard working citizens. An ugly revenue-generation cycle thus results from unchecked powers by our own government, and or local leaders. Thus we see the City of Provo has an average of 1500 property rights per year, all for revenue. The utility bill has been abused with this tax and that tax for different “pet projects” such as for “free internet” for every citizen, and most within cover of darkness. To top it off we have a power plant that is not run at all! The city buys the power from another source and repackages it, and sells it back to the citizens for a profit!
My point here is not to speak negatively and solely on the current facts, but to speak about viable solutions and to look towards a brighter future where everyone’s Liberty can be safeguarded! The solution I would like to speak on in this article is the idea of city charters. What is a city charter? The term charter is called by other names such as a constitution or a contract. It’s a Common Law solution. Similar to how the US Constitution was the solution for these States united. The Individual States also have charters themselves, and the individual counties and cities can be chartered as well.
If we look at the Noah-Webster’s 1828 dictionary on the words Common and Law we get these definitions:
Common: “Belonging equally to more than one, or to many indefinitely; as, life and sense are common to man and beast; the common privileges of citizens; the common wants of men.”
Law: A rule, particularly an established or permanent rule, prescribed by the supreme power of a state to its subjects, for regulating their actions, particularly their social actions. Laws are imperative or mandatory, commanding what shall be done; prohibitory, restraining from what is to be forborn; or permissive, declaring what may be done without incurring a penalty. The laws which enjoin the duties of piety and morality are prescribed by God and found in the Scriptures.
Common Law is a general Law that is developed in a representative government in order to protect the Liberties of all that live within that society. It is a Law to restrict what a government can and cannot do. The Magna Carta was designed to restrict King John’s power, and to protect certain undeniable rights that all Englishmen had at that time. The English Bill of Rights was designed to help keep the British Colonies together and once again restrict what the King could and could not do. After the separation from the King of England, the founders set out to draft the US Constitution (which we still have to this day) in order to protect the Liberty of all US Citizens, and to be a standard for all Freemen. The people from the individual states not only elected their local leaders, but created their own state constitutions and republican forms of governance. In order to protect the Liberty of all that resided with in the individual states. It was the states that appointed delegates to create a contract (US Constitution) in order to bind the Union together and to create a national governmental branch that was limited in its roles, scope and size. You can see that it was the people that established these forms of Contract Law for the protection of all individuals. So that there could be equal protection under the Law, and common consent of all to live under that said Law (Common Law).
In our Common Law system of governance the states constitutions must coincide with the federal constitution, and the city and county constitutions to coincide with state and federal constitutions. If we read in Article Four Section Four of the US Constitution is reads.
“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.”
Here with in the sovereign State of Utah, our state constitution reads this concerning city charters and how to become one in Article 11 Section 5.
“The Legislature may not create cities or towns by special laws.
“The Legislature by statute shall provide for the incorporation, organization, and dissolution of cities and towns and for their classification in proportion to population. Any incorporated city or town may frame and adopt a charter for its own government in the following manner:”
“The legislative authority of the city may, by two-thirds vote of its members, and upon petition of qualified electors to the number of fifteen per cent of all votes cast at the next preceding election for the office of the mayor, shall forthwith provide by ordinance for the submission to the electors of the question: “Shall a commission be chosen to frame a charter?” The ordinance shall require that the question be submitted to the electors at the next regular municipal election. The ballot containing such ++6question shall also contain the names of candidates for members of the proposed commission, but without party designation. Such candidates shall be nominated in the same manner as required by law for nomination of city officers. If a majority of the electors voting on the question of choosing a commission shall vote in the affirmative, then the fifteen candidates receiving a majority of the votes cast at such election, shall constitute the charter commission, and shall proceed to frame a charter.
Any charter so framed shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the city at an election to be held at a time to be determined by the charter commission, which shall be not less than sixty days subsequent to its completion and distribution among the electors and not more than one year from such date. Alternative provisions may also be submitted to be voted upon separately. The commission shall make provisions for the distribution of copies of the proposed charter and of any alternative provisions to the qualified electors of the city, not less than sixty days before the election at which it is voted upon. Such proposed charter and such alternative provisions as are approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon, shall become an organic law of such city at such time as may be fixed therein, and shall supersede any existing charter and all laws affecting the organization and government of such city which are now in conflict therewith. Within thirty days after its approval a copy of such charter as adopted, certified by the mayor and city recorder and authenticated by the seal of such city, shall be made in duplicate and deposited, one in the office of the secretary of State and the other in the office of the city recorder, and thereafter all courts shall take judicial notice of such charter.
Amendments to any such charter may be framed and submitted by a charter commission in the same manner as provided for making of charters, or may be proposed by the legislative authority of the city upon a two-thirds vote thereof, or by petition of qualified electors to a number equal to fifteen per cent of the total votes cast for mayor on the next preceding election, and any such amendment may be submitted at the next regular municipal election, and having been approved by the majority of the electors voting thereon, shall become part of the charter at the time fixed in such amendment and shall be certified and filed as provided in case of charters.
Each city forming its charter under this section shall have, and is hereby granted, the authority to exercise all powers relating to municipal affairs, and to adopt and enforce within its limits, local police, sanitary and similar regulations not in conflict with the general law, and no enumeration of powers in this constitution or any law shall be deemed to limit or restrict the general grant of authority hereby conferred; but this grant of authority shall not include the power to regulate public utilities, not municipally owned, if any such regulation of public utilities is provided for by general law, nor be deemed to limit or restrict the power of the Legislature in matters relating to State affairs, to enact general laws applicable alike to all cities of the State.”
Here in Provo, I first received the idea of a city charter during my first mayoral election, and while reading and studying up on the city charter that Nauvoo, Illinois, had during the early nineteenth century along with the protections that it granted to the citizens. It dawned on me how to fix Provo, and the solution was to establish a charter in order to restrict what the city could and could not do. For the protection of all who currently resides in, and all that would move into the city’s boundaries. Below is my vision for a system of governance that not only would restrict what the city could and could not do; but that would also involve a greater percentage of citizen involvement with in the city. Of course my vision is only my vision, and there would be fourteen others that would be drafting this governing document for the city as well as the citizens voting upon the document.
My Vision for the City of Provo’s Constitution
As what has been said before a city constitution must coincide with the federal constitution as well as the state’s. With this being said my vision is to draft this Law after the manner of the US Constitution. I feel this way, because it was God that granted us the US Constitution, and since it has survived nearly 240 years, and since it promotes and preserves freedoms to all citizens; such an excellent role model to develop our Law with!
After I get done with all of the articles, which describes how the city is to be ran. I plan to add a Bill of Rights to this charter as well, in order to fully protect the citizens of Provo and their individual rights. Not just have a Bill of Rights, but what if we further describe what those certain God given rights are, and address certain provisions in protecting those rights. A similar idea to this fact would be the Nauvoo City Charter back in the early nineteenth century when they addressed religious liberty, and the protection of that liberty. I not only would like to the same thing, but I also would like to go a step further and protect the individual’s property rights.
Article 1 Representation
In order to gain the citizen involvement with in city business, I envision for the city to adopt a lower council and an upper council (after the manner of the US Congress). The lower council to be consisted of 12 seats all being elected by the people and each district being apportioned by population, making it easier for the simple man or woman to run for office, and to represent their constituencies.
The Upper Council to represent six specific regions of the city. Where we could have the individual neighborhood chairs and vice chairs with in those regions elect the representation with in the upper council, in order to represent the neighborhoods as a whole, or replace those upper house of representatives at any time if they fail to represent the individual neighborhoods (term limits).
Checks, Balances, Duties
The lower council’s sole duties are too make the laws for the governing the city. Those laws must also coincide with either the federal, state, or city charters. They will have the sole responsibility of the purse (city’s finances). They would also be in charge of the taxation and the revenue of the city with a simple majority.
The upper house would have the power to confirm or deny the mayoral appointments. They would also have the power to check the lower council’s laws to either confirm that those laws that the lower house is attempting to pass are constitutional and that they are financially sound. Or reject certain proposed laws due to unconstitutionality of such laws, or due to fact that they simply cost too much. They would also be a check against excessive taxation with in the city, and or approve of certain necessary taxation with a simple majority.
If the executive of the city vetoes any legislative action, then by 3/4ths vote both councils can override any such veto and pass the law, budget, or tax in question. In times of impeachment of the executive, with a 3/4ths vote the lower council may choose to impeach the mayor, and choose the prosecutor in order to pursue such impeachment charges (executive privilege shall not block this process). Then the upper house would at that point act as the judge and try the case of impeachment. The only punishment that the upper council can issue upon impeachment is to remove the said mayor. This same process should also be able to be used for the city marshal, treasurer, and auditor.
In case of unjust termination of city employees or the need to terminate certain city employees, there needs to be added an appeal process for which the employee in question may appeal to the upper council for a chance to undo their unjust termination from the city, with 2/3rds vote. In cases of city employees that needs to be terminated from the city. The upper council may override the mayor’s authority by 2/3rds vote to terminate the employee in question. This method also needs to pass the lower counsel by 2/3rds vote. This process shall only be used in times of questionable favoritism, and or nepotism.
Article 2 Executive Branch
The mayor’s sole duties would include the power of the veto pin, and pardon pen; micro-managing the individual city departments; enforcing the laws of the city; and providing a City of City address to the city. (The police and fire departments are exempt from this micro-management)
The power of the veto pin is self-explanatory. He would be another check against the counsel if they pass a law, tax, or unbalanced budget. He would also be the one that must sign a new law, tax or budget into law. If the courts wrongfully convict a person or fines a person; then the mayor has the authority to pardon such persons over such wrongful punishments, fines, or judgements.
The Mayor much like the City Auditor and the Treasurer would be elected by the electoral college of the city. The Electoral College would consist of all the votes from the individual neighborhood chairs and vice chairs. The Deputy Mayor would be the person that comes in second for the office of mayor, and act as an advisor only to the Mayor.
The duties of the City Auditor are to audit every branch and department of the city, and give his results to the lower and upper city council. The duties of City Treasurer are to keep track of the cities expenses, and payables, and to issue payments. They are also mandated to report to the lower and upper counsel of the city. The treasurer must also act accordingly with the US Constitution and the State’s Sound Money Act, regarding the payment of fees, taxes, and services; allowing the citizens the options to pay their fees, taxes, and services with gold and silver tender.
The City Marshal of the city is to work with the elected sheriff of the county. He is to make sure that his police department is striving to serve the general welfare of the city, by enforcing the laws of the city. Also to make sure that all citizens are safe from all possible dangers, and that the citizen’s liberties are ultimately protected. He is to work independently with the Mayor, the Counsel, and for the court. The fire marshal is also to be elected by the people and to work with and report to the mayor, the counsel, the police marshal and the county fire marshal and county sheriff, as well as the courts.
Article 3 Judicial Branch
The Judicial branch will consist of a judge or judges appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the upper counsel of the city. Their sole duty is to administer justice to the convicted, and to write the final opinion on laws in question. They are to use the strict meaning of the federal, state, and city constitutions as the basis to deem an act of other city departments or branches as legal or unconstitutional. They are not to interpret either the federal, state, or city constitutions. If there is a time that arises where the judge needs to step down and they are not doing so voluntary no matter what the concern may or may not be. It is up to the upper counsel to remove that judge with a 3/4ths vote. The Judicial branch will also use a grand jury of 12 citizens whose sole responsibility is to decide the fate of a person on trial, guilty or not guilty. These twelve citizens shall not have any restrictions as to who can or cannot serve, unless they are under the age of 18 or a convicted felon. They shall be members from the community at large, picked at random. On matters of corruption within government it is up the grand jury to use all the facts to issue a statement of charges. Then at that point the sitting judge shall issue a bench warrant for either the city marshal or the county sheriff to pick up the public official in question.
Article 4 Amendment Process
In times when this Law needs to be amended, it shall require 3/4ths of both counsels upper and lower to offer up amendments to this city constitution, and 3/4ths of the total number of electorate to vote for such proposed constitutional amendments within the next election cycle. Upon passage of such constitutional amendments, the new constitutional amendments shall take effect two years after the votes take place to amend the city constitution; for the purposes of codifying such changes.
Article 5 Individual Neighborhood Elections and Governing Processes.
Every two years with in the individual city neighborhoods with, and in the month of February. There shall be an election for the next chair and vice chair. For the sole purposes of convening neighborhood meetings/discussions; participating with in electoral process in selecting the city mayor and deputy mayor, and electing and un-electing upper council members.
During the convening of the neighborhood meetings, the neighborhood chairs or vice chairs must invite the specific upper council members to speak to the neighborhoods, and to answer any if not all questions and or concerns for the neighborhood at large. The chairs and vice chairs must choose to invite candidates for the upper counsel for the same purposes. The chairs and vice chairs must stay politically neutral, and cannot endorse any particular candidate for any office. The Lower Counsel shall set forth the dates, times, and locations for such elections of neighborhood chairs and vice chairs. As well as set the rules as to whom may be comprised to count the ballots when electing the chairs and vice chairs. The committees when counting the ballots for the chairs and vice chairs must be comprised of citizens from the said neighborhood that the election is being taken place within, and that the committee comprised of in order to count the ballots shall be consisted of 12 citizens.
Every four years during the mayoral elections. The individual neighborhood chairs and vice chairs shall meet in one central location in order to cast their individual ballots for the office of mayor, auditor and treasurer. This location shall be set by the lower council. The person that gains the most votes in anyone of these three offices Mayor, Auditor and Treasurer; shall be announced as the winner of the said race. In the race for City Mayor, the first runner up (second place) shall be the deputy mayor. Upon any ties for any of these three said offices. The delegates must then go into a second and third round of voting until the winner is then chosen. If after the three rounds of voting, no winner is chosen. Then the city must look towards the popular vote to decide the said race in question.

Provo City’s Bill of rights
1. Religious Liberty
Provo City Council shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Provo City Council may create law in order to enforce this provision.
The very definition of religious liberty shall include one’s freedom of conscience. One’s right to worship whatever faith he or she chooses to worship.

2. The Right to Bear Arms
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Provo City Council may create law in order to enforce this provision.
The elected city marshal may hire such militia comprising of well-trained citizens with in the police department. The city marshal may hold trainings to teach proper gun safety and usage of such arms. The right to bear arms shall be applied to any tool that the citizen chooses to protect his or her own home, family, and well-being of their communities.
3. Property Rights

All governmental officials shall fully respect ones individual right to property, papers, and effects.
Government may choose to purchase at equal market values any property for necessary projects only. The citizens have full right to reject such offers to sell their property.
The city shall not impose any tax, fee, or penalty upon ones said property. Nor set or impose any unnecessary regulation upon ones said property.
Citizens in this provision are defined as legal residents currently living within the Provo City limits.
Provo City Council may create legislation in order to fully enforce this provision.

4. Innocent Until Proven Guilty

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No knock warrants are not to be considered as valid warrants. All said warrants must respect amendment 3 of this city constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. The assistance of counsel shall be anyone whom is familiar with the law.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Provo City courts shall accept all Writs of Habeas Corpus.

5. Rights of the Citizens

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Setting the record straight on the idea of a Constitutional Convention

Historical Context

In the beginning of our Nation’s history, and after the war for independence. Our young nation was struggling with a flawed constitution, known as the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation may have had a very a limited percentage of good with in the Law. The Law however was still tremendously flawed, and needed to be revised and or replaced. The founders of this nation were incredibly Inspired, Wise, and Honorable men, and knew something had to be done. So they set out  meeting with different groups such as The Patriotic Society or the Society of the Cincinnati in order to discuss this first constitutional crises and possible solutions. The founders were wary of these groups, and were cautious when meeting with them such as this wise counsel from the Father of the Nation George Washington.

“If the first, I would fain hope that like other Mobs it will, however formidable, be of short duration. If the latter there are surely men of consequence and abilities behind the curtain who move the puppets; the designs of whom may be deep and dangerous. They may be instigated by British counsel; actuated by ambitious motives, or being influenced by dishonest principles, had rather see the Country in the horror of civil discord, than do what justice would dictate to an honest mind.”

The founders then decided to amend the current constitution by calling for a Convention of the States. Some of whom had great concern such as George Washington in his quote stating.

“On the last occasion, only five States were represented; none East of New York. Why the Nw. England Governments did not appear, I am yet to learn; for of all others the distractions and turbulent temper of these people would, I should have thought, have afforded the strongest evidence of the necessity of competent powers somewhere. That the Foederal Government is nearly, if not quite at a stand, none will deny. The first question then is, shall it be annihilated or supported? If the latter, the proposed convention is an object of the first magnitude, and should be supported by all the friends of the present Constitution. In the other case, if on a full and dispassionate revision thereof, the continuance shall be adjudged impracticable or unwise, as only delaying an event which must ’ere long take place; would it not be better for such a Meeting to suggest some other, to avoid if possible civil discord or other impending evils? I must candidly confess, as we could not remain quiet more than three or four years in time of peace, under the Constitutions of our own choosing; which it was believed, in many States at least, were formed with deliberation and wisdom, I see little prospect either of our agreeing upon any other, or that we should remain long satisfied under it if we could. Yet I would wish any thing, and every thing essayed to prevent the effusion of blood, and to avert the humiliating and contemptible figure we are about to make in the annals of mankind.

If this second attempt to convene the States for the purposes proposed by the report of the partial representation at Annapolis in September, should also prove abortive, it may be considered as an unequivocal evidence that the States are not likely to agree on any general measure which is to pervade the Union, and of course that there is an end of Foederal Government. The States therefore which make the last dying essay to avoid these misfortunes, would be mortified at the issue, and their deputies would return home chagrined at their ill success and disappointment. This would be a disagreeable circumstance for any one of them to be in, but more particularly so for a person in my situation. If no further application is made to me, of course I do not attend; if there is, I am under no obligation to do it, but as I have had so many proofs of your friendship, know your abilities to judge, and your opportunities of learning the politics of the day, on the points I have enumerated, you would oblige me by a full and confidential communication of your sentiments thereon.”

So after a few attempts in each State resolutions were passed calling for a general convention to amend the Articles of Confederation (the constitution). With the strict language of amend only and if not to come home immediately. A sample of such language can be found in the George Washington’s letter to Governor Edmund Randolph on Dec. 21st 1786.

“Sensible as I am of the honor conferred on me by the General Assembly, in appointing me one of the Deputies to a Convention proposed to be held in the City of Philadelphia in May next, for the purpose of revising the Foederal Constitution”

In Federalist number forty we read about New York’s call.

“as a mean to remedy which, several of the States, and PARTICULARLY THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by express instructions to their delegates in Congress, have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution; and such convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these States A FIRM NATIONAL GOVERNMENT:”Resolved, That in the opinion of Congress it is expedient, that on the second Monday of May next a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose OF REVISING THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such ALTERATIONS AND PROVISIONS THEREIN, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution ADEQUATE TO THE EXIGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE UNION.”

If we look at all of the credentials of all of the delegates sent to that convention of the States in the Elliot Debates it shows the same language, that their intent was to “revise” the current constitution (Articles of Confederation. Then sending the Congress the proceedings of the convention to be voted upon and adopted. If we continue reading (in the Elliots Debates) the rules that were set up in the beginning of the convention itself  reads in the same manner. That being to “revise” the current constitution. Lets turn to the Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary as it reads.

1. To review; to re-examine; to look over with care for correction; as, to revise a writing; to revise a proof sheet.

2. To review, alter and amend; as, to revise statutes.”

During those hot summer months of 1787 the founders did NOT revise the Articles of Confederation, but worked hard on a new Constitution. With in this new constitution they changed the mode of ratification for the new constitution from 100% of the States to 3/4ths of States. Why do I say this? In Article eight of the Articles of Confederation (the old constitution) it’s expressively clear that All of the States or 100% of the States were needed to amend the constitution and or ratify any thing affecting the nation as a whole. The reason why for this change of ratification requirements were dual fold. One reason is that Rhode Island refused to attend, making their voice absent from the convention process. The other reason was when the convention was on it’s way and after the first resolution by Governor Randolph some of the delegates walked out, losing their say in the proceedings such as the case as Alexander Hamilton from New York.

Let me also add that all of these resolutions to call for one convention for the strict purpose of revising the constitution. The calls were done strictly to the vernacular of the Articles of Confederation. So why violate the rules and the strict instruction to set aside the old constitution and to draft a new constitution? The reason being is that the old constitution was written more like a treaty, it was flawed and could not with hold the tests of time. Some of the flaws of the document were  as follows. No war making authority for the defense of these States United. No supreme court to settle disputes among the states. No executive power to lead yes, but to act as another check and balance against the federal courts and the federal congress. No enforcement provisions regarding to international trade and the free trade amongst the individual states. There are many more reasons why we needed a stronger Law to bind this Union of States, but this should be sufficient for now.

I am grateful that the original Constitutional Convention that turned into a runaway convention took place. I am grateful for the founders that were raised up by God in order to fulfill their purpose upon this earth. I am grateful that God presided over that convention. I am grateful that the founders knew this to be a fact, and please let me share with you just two quotes of George Washington stating as such in two different letters. The first quote comes from his letter to Jonathan Trumbull on July 20th 1788.

“Or at least we may, with a kind of grateful and pious exultation, trace the finger of Providence through those dark and mysterious events, which first induced the States to appoint a general Convention and then led them one after another (by such steps as were best calculated to effect the object) into an adoption of the system recommended by that general Convention; thereby, in all human probability, laying a lasting foundation for tranquillity and happiness; when we had but too much reason to fear that confusion and misery were coming rapidly upon us. That the same good Providence may still continue to protect us and prevent us from dashing the cup of national felicity just as it has been lifted to our lips, is the earnest prayer of My Dear Sir, your faithful friend, &c.”

Or this letter to the Marques De Laffeyette on May 28, 1788 and it reads.

“A few short weeks will determine the political fate of America for the present generation and probably produce no small influence on the happiness of society through a long succession of ages to come. Should every thing proceed with harmony and consent according to our actual wishes and expectations; I will confess to you sincerely, my dear Marquis; it will be so much beyond any thing we had a right to imagine or expect eighteen months ago, that it will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence, as any possible event in the course of human affairs can ever designate it. It is impracticable for you or any one who has not been on the spot, to realise the change in men’s minds and the progress towards rectitude in thinking and acting which will then have been made.”

This researcher is of the faith the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and with in our Holy Writ it says this with in the Doctrine and Covenants on December 16 and 17, 1833.

“79.Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”

As you may see The Constitution was inspired to come about to solve all the issues at the time in our Nation’s young history. The Constitution was and still is the solution to solve any of our issues that we may face as a Nation. So that all of man kind may be free and independent.

 Modern Day Push to Call for Another Convention

Jumping ahead two hundred and twenty eight years to this year 2015. We now have people from different walks of life and different special interest groups seeking to revise the US Constitution, by calling for one convention to do so. They are calling these ideas an Amendments Convention, an Article V Convention, or a Convention of the States. You know what the old saying goes? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck! All three names are a modern day constitutional convention. The suggestions that this researcher has seen has been amendments to call for balanced budget amendments (already mandated by the constitution), term limits amendments (we used to have in the articles of confederation), amendments to repeal or revise the second amendment, amendments to mandate governmental healthcare, amendments to restrict free speech, etc. Some of these special interest groups are ALEC, Balanced Budget Task Force, Occupy Wall Street,  different Tea Party groups, Wolf PAC, Goldwater Institute, Convention of States, Convention USA, MoveOn.org, etc.

Some of the persons with an agenda whom are pushing for this are as followers George Sorros, Mark Levin, Lawrence Lessig, Glenn Beck, Representative Sickles, etc. I know what you may be thinking “who are most of these people?” State Representative Sickles is known for making this comment which either proves his incompetence or his agenda.

“We don’t want anyone “whacking away” at our Constitution – and Delegates to an Art. V convention would have the power to do just that….”

While George Sorros is known for bankrupting different nation’s economies and causing havoc from with in those nation’s societies. If you don’t believe me then please just Google this simple known fact. Lawrence Lessig was the main former campaign manager for the Obama administration. There are also certain gay activists pushing for this as well. I take you to this excerpt from the New American Magazine as of Sunday the 8th of this year, and I quote.

“Make no mistake, if the Constitution is opened up to the tinkering of these tin horns, the monied interests will be present and their irresistible influence will shape the product of the Article V process.

Take a look around the country and one can see what a new constitution would look like. With courts forcing states to recognize gay “marriage” in one jurisdiction after the other, there is no limit to the panoply of “rights” that would be pursued by the con-con 2.0 delegates.”

 

The question is this. Do we really want this modern day constitutional convention to be torn ripped a sunder due to partisan bickering and globalist agendas?!  Let us remember George Washington’s advise earlier on in this white paper regarding unsavory characters. Let us also heed to George Washington’s advise and council with in this quote.

“In these honorable qualifications, I behold the surest pledges, that as on one side, no local prejudices, or attachments; no separate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests: so, on another, that the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of a free Government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its Citizens, and command the respect of the world.”

The proponents of such an idea to call for one ambiguous constitutional convention (no matter what name that they use to describe it). May say that the “States would be in control”, “the States would set the rules”, “that we can limit this to one item convention”, or that “we still need 3/4ths of the States for ratification”. All of which is simply not true! As we learn from history the founders changed the mode of ratification when Rhode Island choose not to attend, and when only 55 out of 73 delegates never attended the convention due to the distance of the convention and the financial restraint. If we use the first and only convention as a guide in these matters the same will occur again, that being the mode of ratification will be changed to adopt something that we ALL do not want. As to the other excuses that the proponents are using as this time, lets look at what the most current Congressional Research is saying about an Article V convention. Since it will be the Congress that will be calling this convention after the request from 2/3rds of the States. On Page 3 of that report generated in 2014 it reads.

“What compelling interest, among the many competing demands for its time and energy, does
Congress have in the Article V Convention mechanism? There is little to command its interest if
the Article V Convention remains, as it has for the past three decades, a constitutional footnote. In
the event of revived pubic interest in this issue, however, Congress might choose to reexamine its
constitutional duties under Article V.”Page 18
“The language of the Constitution is notably straightforward on Congress’s duty to call an Article
V Convention: “… on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
[Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…. (emphasis added)” The
founders’ intentions seem unmistakable, and no less an authority than Alexander Hamilton wrote
emphatically that, once the two-thirds threshold is met, “the Congress will be obliged … to call a
convention for proposing amendments…. The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress
‘shall call a convention.’ Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body
(emphasis”
Page 4
“Second, while the Constitution is silent on the mechanics of an Article V convention, Congress
has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including
(1) receiving, judging, and recording state applications; (2) establishing procedures to summon a
convention; (3) setting the amount of time allo
tted to its deliberations; (4) determining the
number and selection process for its delegates; (5) setting internal convention procedures,
including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; and (6) arranging for the formal
transmission of any proposed amendments to the states.”
Page 19
“For instance, most constitutional scholars hold
that applications proposing a specifically worded amendment are invalid. As one observer noted,
“these resolutions seek to make the ‘Convention’ part of the ratifying (emphasis in the original)
process, rather than part of the deliberative process for “proposing” constitutional amendments….
they are applications for a convention empowered solely to approve or disapprove the submission
to the states of particular amendments ‘proposed’ elsewhere.” 79 Another reason for hesitation in
calling an Article V Convention centers on the great issue of its scope”
Page 26
“… an application requesting an up-or-down vote on a specifically worded amendment cannot
be considered valid. Such an approach robs the Convention of its deliberative function which
is inherent in article V language stating that the Convention’s purpose is to “propose
amendments.” If the State legislatures were permitted to propose the exact wording of an
amendment and stipulate that the language not be altered, the Convention would be deprived
of this function and would become instead part of the ratification process.1″
Page 22
“According to his judgment, an Article V Convention must be free to pursue any issue it pleases,
notwithstanding the limitations included in either state applications or the congressional summons
by which it was called: If the legislatures of thirty-four states request Congress to call a general constitutional convention, Congress has a constitutional duty to summon such a convention. If those thirty – four states recommend in their applications that the convention consider only a particular subject, Congress still must call a convention and leave to the convention the ultimate
determination of the agenda and the nature of the amendments it may choose to propose. 96″
Lastly on Page 21
“In fact, he went on to assert that limited conventions would be constitutionally impermissible for the reason that no language is found in Article V that authorizes them:
It (Article V) does not (emphasis in the original) imply that a convention summoned for the
purpose of dealing with electoral malapportionment 91 may kick over the traces and emit
proposals dealing with other subjects. It implies something much more fundamental than
that; it implies that Congress cannot be obligated, no matter how many States ask for it, to
summon a convention for the limited purposed of dealing with electoral apportionment
alone, and that such a convention would have no constitutional standing at all. 92
Consequently, by this reasoning, the many hundreds of state applications for a convention to
consider amendments on a particular subject are null and void.”
As you can see with in this report that Congress will have sole discretion upon setting the rules on which to call the delegates. Setting the location of the convention. Setting the rules for the purpose of the convention. It is also apparent that a convention CAN NOT be limited to one cause, agenda, or amendment. There will be court challenges as well that would last years, money and resources. Why waste such valuable resources on such a dangerous unknown process?!  Please see pages 8 and 20 of that same report.Page 8
“17 states passed resolutions rescinding their applications for an Article V Convention, or in some instances, all previous applications. Five of these 17 states, most recently Tennessee and Georgia, have submitted fresh applications since 2010, thus arguably making the question of their original rescissions, and those of other states, moot. 23 With respect to rescission, the current status of applications from the remaining 12 states turns on the question of whether states have the right to rescind their applications for an Article V Convention. Proponents of the convention device tend to deny legality of rescission, while others argue to the contrary. Ultimately, the question remains at issue because it has yet to be the subject of congressional legislation or a definitive court decision.
24″
Page 20
“Ultimately, it is difficult to conceive that Congress would fail to heed the deliberate call of a
substantial majority of the nation’s citizens, acting through the agency of their state legislatures,
and meeting the clearly stated requirements of Article V. As Cyril Brickfield noted, in the final
analysis, “[p]ublic opinion and, ultimately, the ballot box are the only realistic means by which
the Congress can be persuaded to act.” 87 The House Judiciary Committee speculated that congressional failure to call a convention might trigger court challenges that could lead to a constitutional crisis, 88 but another legal scholar wrote that, “[e]ven conceding the reach of the judicial power as exercised these days, I find it difficult to believe that the Supreme Court would issue an order compelling Congress to carry out a duty which can hardly be called a simple ministerial duty, or would, in the alternative, take it upon itself to prescribe the procedures for a convention. I much prefer to rely on the integrity of Congress in carrying out a constitutional duty.””

Many of us patriots/citizens are not just the only ones in opposition to this modern day constitutional convention call, but many if not all of the founders were against having another convention of the States as well. Such as James Madison (Father of the Constitution) and George Washington (Father of the Nation). Let us heed to their wise counsel when the anti-federalists were pushing to have another constitutional convention. In his letter to Marquis De Lafayette, George Washington has this to say on Feb. 7th, 1788

“Should that which is now offered to the People of America, be found an experiment less perfect than it can be made—a Constitutional door is left open for its amelioration. Some respectable characters have wished that the States, after having pointed out whatever alterations and amendments may be judged necessary, would appoint another federal Co[n]vention to modify it upon these documents. For myself I have wondered that sensible men should not see the impracticability of the scheme. The members would go fortified with such Instructions that nothing but discordant ideas could prevail. Had I but slightly suspected (at the time when the late Convention was in session) that another Convention would not be likely to agree upon a better form of Government, I should now be confirmed in the fixed belief that they would not be able to agree upon any System whatever: So many, I may add, such contradictory, and, in my opinion, unfounded objections have been urged against the System in contemplation; many of which would operate equally against every efficient Government that might be proposed. I will only add, as a farther opinion founded on the maturest deliberation, that there is no alternative—no hope of alteration—no intermediate resting place—between the adoption of this and a recurrence to an unqualified state of Anarchy, with all its deplorable consequences.”

Or this this advice in James Madison’s letter to George Lee Turberville on Nov. the 2nd 1788.

“If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. 4. It is not unworthy of consideration that the prospect of a second Convention would be viewed by all Europe as a dark and threatening Cloud hanging over the Constitution just established, and perhaps over the Union itself; and wd. therefore suspend at least the advantages this great event has promised us on that side. It is a well known fact that this event has filled that quarter of the Globe with equal wonder and veneration, that its influence is already secretly but powerfully working in favor of liberty in France, and it is fairly to be inferred that the final event there may be materially affected by the prospect of things here. We are not sufficiently sensible of the importance of the example which this Country may give to the world; nor sufficiently attentive to the advantages we may reap from the late reform, if we avoid bringg. it into danger. The last loan in Holland and that alone, saved the U. S. from Bankruptcy in Europe; and that loan was obtained from a belief that the Constitution then depending wd. be certainly speedily, quietly, and finally established, & by that means put America into a permanent capacity to discharge with honor & punctuality all her engagements. I am Dr. Sir, Yours”

Now what are the solutions to ALL of our Nation’s problems? I have to ask this simple question, because the proponents of these modern day constitutional convention calls do a very fine job laying out the problems. To which I whole heartily agree to being our problems that must be corrected. To map out just a small percentage of issues plaguing our nation, let me cite Utah House Representative Merrill F. Nelson’s constitutional convention resolution (H.J.R. 3) lines 37 through 50.

37          WHEREAS, the United States Congress has, at times, exceeded its delegated powers
38     and otherwise passed laws injurious to the states and the people;
39          WHEREAS, the President of the United States has, at times, exceeded the executive’s
40     constitutional authority and taken actions injurious to the states and the people by issuing
41     certain executive orders, failing or refusing to enforce certain laws duly passed by Congress,
42     issuing waivers from compliance with federal statutes, and directing federal administrative
43     agencies to impose rules and regulations contrary to federal statutes;
44          WHEREAS, federal courts have, at times, exceeded their authority by issuing decisions
45     not grounded in the United States Constitution, by issuing decisions on public policy matters
46     reserved to the states in violation of principles of federalism and separation of powers, and
47     otherwise issuing decisions injurious to the states and the people;
48          WHEREAS, federal administrative agencies have, at times, issued rules and regulations
49     beyond their statutory authority and have otherwise issued rules and regulations or taken other
50     actions injurious to the states and the people;”

The Solution

The solution to all of our problems is the same solution that lifted up our Nation out of our problems in the very beginning. That being the enforcement of the US Constitution. Our problems are not a problem with the Constitution, but a violation of the Law. We are in a sense have become a lawless society because neither the republicans nor the democrats are adhering to the the Law. Now you may be asking yourself this question. “Wouldn’t calling for a Constitutional Convention be adhering to the Law?” Technically yes, but is is wise to execute this principle in our currently dangerous political climate?  With so much of the general populace being ignorant as to what is Lawful vs Lawless? Calling a modern day constitutional would only bring chaos and confusion to our society! The solution is and has always been what James Madison and Thomas Jefferson referred to as Nullification. Which is the States raising the barriers against the unconstitutional nature of the federal government, enforcing the Law being the US Constitution, and declaring that a law, edict or court opinion is Null in void. In fact I find it prudent to cite lines 31-36 as well as lines 65-71 of Mr. Nelson’s Con Con resolution which reaffirms what exactly Nullification is.

“31          WHEREAS, all governing power under the United States Constitution originates from
32     the people and the states;
33          WHEREAS, the United States Constitution delegates certain limited powers to the
34     legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government;
35          WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves all
36     non-delegated powers to the states and the people;

65          WHEREAS, a Countermand Amendment to the United States Constitution would
66     authorize the states, upon a vote by three-fifths of the state legislatures to override and
67     invalidate a congressional statute, executive order, federal court decision, or administrative
68     agency rule, regulation, or other action deemed injurious to the states and the people;
69          WHEREAS, the states, by adopting a Countermand Amendment, properly exercise
70     their constitutional authority to check federal power, preserve state sovereignty, and protect the
71     rights of the states and the people”

I know you might be saying that the Supreme Court has deemed Nullification unconstitutional. Or that the founders never discussed the topic. Well done below is James Madison’s quotes regarding Nullification taken from his speech on the floor of the Virginia and Kentucky State House.

“The resolution, having taken this view of the federal compact, proceeds to infer, “that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.”

“It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal, superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the. parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

“In the existing Constitution, they make the following part of Sec. 8, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.”

“This similarity in the use of these phrases in the two great federal charters, might well be considered, as rendering their meaning less liable to be misconstrued in the latter; because it will scarcely be said, that in the former they were ever understood to be either a general grant of power, or to authorize the requisition or application of money by the old Congress to the common defence and general welfare, except in the cases afterwards enumerated, which explained and limited their meaning; and if such was the limited meaning attached to these phrases in the very instrument revised and remodelled by the present Constitution, it can never be supposed that when copied into this Constitution, a different meaning ought to be attached to them.”

“In the existing Constitution, they make the following part of Sec. 8, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.”

“This similarity in the use of these phrases in the two great federal charters, might well be considered, as rendering their meaning less liable to be misconstrued in the latter; because it will scarcely be said, that in the former they were ever understood to be either a general grant of power, or to authorize the requisition or application of money by the old Congress to the common defence and general welfare, except in the cases afterwards enumerated, which explained and limited their meaning; and if such was the limited meaning attached to these phrases in the very instrument revised and remodelled by the present Constitution, it can never be supposed that when copied into this Constitution, a different meaning ought to be attached to them.”

“The paragraph in Art. I. sect. 8, which contains the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excise; to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare, having been already examined, will also require no particular attention in this place. It will have been seen that in its fair and consistent meaning, it cannot enlarge the enumerated powers vested in Congress.”

Lastly he concludes with this.

“The plain import of this clause is, that Congress shall have all the incidental or instrumental powers necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the express powers; whether they be vested in the government of the United States, more collectively, or in the several departments or officers thereof. It is not a grant of new powers to Congress, but merely a declaration, for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution, those otherwise granted, are included in the grant.

Whenever, therefore, a question arises concerning the constitutionality of a particular power, the first question is, whether the power be expressed in the Constitution. If it be, the question is decided. If it be not expressed, the next inquiry must be, whether it is properly an incident to an express power, and necessary to its execution. If it be, it may be exercised by Congress. If it be not. Congress cannot exercise it.”

In order to address the concerns regarding the constitutionality of Nullification. Let me post what this researcher has addressed in his legislation titled “What to do about same sex marriage ruling”.

I stated this.

“In the area of federalism, the States have an unequivocal right to have their own State Constitutions which coincides with the Federal Constitution, and the people of the individual States have an unequivocal right to amend those individual state constitutions. The US Constitution declares this statement to be a fact. In the tenth amendment we read:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

and the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution reads:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

One of the duties of the Federal government is to protect the right of the State and of the people to govern the individual States accordingly. As we read in Article Four Section Four:
“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.”
With this being said on December 20, 2013 a Federal court Judge Shelby pinned his opinion that Utah’s amendment three was unconstitutional. Which violates these three clauses with in the US Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. As laid out in Article Six Section Two, which reads:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
They also violated their Oath of office as well, as mentioned in Article Six Section Three:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

With these blatant attacks by the Federal government upon the Law, it is the Duty of the States to Enforce the Law. Since it was the People that created the States and the States that created the Federal government.”

I go on to say this.

“Since we are Nullifying a Court opinion in order to enforce our own State Constitution as well as the Federal Constitution. I find it prudent to mention these comments from the opinion of the Supreme Court in the renown court case Marbury vs. Madison which reads.

“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

In that same court opinion we read.
“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.”

Now you are most likely saying to yourself that this idea of Nullification may just work, but you still have questions of it working? Or else you are being negative as to it not working at all. Let me simply point out the the instances in modern history of this working with out ramifications from the federal government. That list includes:

1.In MontanaLR-122 is an act “prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance.”  It also prohibits the imposition of “penalties for decisions related to the purchase of health insurance coverage.” The measure passed overwhelmingly, 65%-34%2. In Colorado

Section 3 allows the “personal use and regulation of marijuana” for adults 21 and over. Section 4 addresses legal commercial cultivation, manufacture, and sale. The intent is that marijuana be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol. Colorado, after Washington State (info below), is the 2nd state in the country to have passed full legalization, and one of only a handful in the entire world. The measure passed by 54%-46%

 3. In Alabama
This legislatively-referred amendment frees Alabama citizens from any requirement to participate in Obamacare, or any other compulsory health care program. The ballot language reads as follows: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to prohibit any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system. It passed, 59%-41%4. In Washington State

Whatever you call the plant, Washington DC considers it dangerous and illegal. Laws on the books in Congress – illegal. The executive branch – aggressive about enforcing those laws. The supreme court – in 2005 ruled against the idea of states legalizing for any purpose. But yet, 18 states have been standing up and defying DC on this issue by legalizing marijuana for limited medicinal purposes. Washington’s I-502 takes it a step further. It ends marijuana prohibition and treats pot in the same manner as alcohol. People are allowed to grow, produce, sell, buy and consume the plant – in direct defiance to all three branches of the federal government. The Initiative passed, 55%-45%

 5. In Wyoming

Wyoming voters passed a health care freedom amendment to the Declaration of Rights in the state constitution. The Wyoming Constitution now guarantees citizens of the state the right to make their own healthcare decisions with minimal governmental interference. Article 1, Section 38 – Right of Health Care Access (a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.  The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person. (b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so. It passed by a huge margin, 76%-24%

6. In Massachusetts

A YES VOTE  on Question 3 enacted “the law eliminating state criminal and civil penalties related to the medical use of marijuana, allowing patients meeting certain conditions to obtain marijuana produced and distributed by new state-regulated centers or, in specific hardship cases, to grow marijuana for their own use.” The 18th state to nullify federal laws on weed did it in a landslide. The final tally was 64%-36%

7. The Real ID Act under Bush Jr. has been nullified in about 16 States and growing.

Here are a list of topics where the rest of the States are Nullifying including in the State of California, where they have Nullified the usage of drones. This list continues to grow.

For more information as to which State is doing what regarding to Nullification please see the Tenth Amendment Center, which by the way is opposed to calling for one ambiguous Constitutional Convention. In closing I end just like I began, which is the same advice for our great Nation as these States United. The solution is, as it has always been to enforce the Constitution.

2014 Election

With the election cycle now over, all the mail-in and provisional ballots still being tallied and finalized, I wanted to to write up this candidate’s opinion of what happened in my race for the open Utah House District 64 seat.” I need to first mention that I am not claiming voter fraud or any conspiracy in the matter. I am solely wanting to get out the facts as to the momentum and likelihood of winning my race, and how the supposed four hundred votes (11%) simply does not add up to “their” official numbers.

At the very beginning of this election cycle, the day after the filing deadline, the Democrat by the name of Scott Ferrin called me saying he had not a wish to serve and or campaign. He also stated that he was “good friends” with two of the republican choices on the ballot. (Norm Thurston, and Karen Ellingston). Through out the campaign he never lifted a finger to campaign or spend one cent on the campaign. So in that aspect he was true to his word. At the one and only debate just one week before this election he stated the same thing. That he has no intention of serving, that he was friends with the republican nominee Norm Thurston, and wished me luck against Norm. So my question is why file Scott?

Throughout my campaigning I received nothing but gratitude and praise for standing up upon correct principles, being that refreshing independent voice in this turbulent world economically and politically. Next thing I knew popularity for the campaign exploded literally over night.  Supporters  were volunteering left and right looking to finally get their man into office. I was winning in regards to how many people were helping out. I won the sign war between myself and the republican nominee. I truly had republican, democrat, and independent support. The republican nominee for County Commission Greg Graves told me personally that his campaign kept hearing a lot of positive things about my campaign. Greg Graves also told me over the phone that the Chairman of the Utah County Republican Party (Casey Voeks) stated that I would only get 11% of the vote. How did he know the exact number? One of my republican supporters received a phone call by the party in order to get out the vote for my opponent. (which never has happened in my county and for a small district race). In fact looking over the my opponent’s financial disclosures the County Republican party donated $2000, the House Republicans donated another $1000, the Republican in the neighboring district donated $750 (out of his campaign) and the former speaker of the House Republican Rebecca Lockhart’s husband Stan donated $200 from their PAC fund, totally $4000. Needless to say the that the Republican Party was definitely worried about my race. My opponent had said originally that he wasn’t going to campaign or put signs out, and yet half way through the election season he did just the opposite. Clearly he was also nervous about the race as well. Before moving on I find it prudent to mention that Governor Gary Herbert and other wicked establishment men were backing this guy as well. So what happened?

It is my personal belief that the election machines produced by the DieBold Corporation where programmed not just against me in my race, but all the races in Utah. Programmed for Republicans and more specifically that first question that is asked on the machines “would you like to vote straight party?” We do know that Fox News did a story on these machines and how easy it is to throw an election a certain way.

We also know that the original developer testified before Congress that he was paid to insure that these machines can be programmed to throw an election.

One can find hundreds of other example out there as to how these machines can be rigged, and it is up to the reader to do just that research. In regards to my race, I went down to my county’s election office in an attempt to get them to count the paper receipts from those blasted machines. I believe that it is extremely important to count every single vote. Why not that is exactly how elections were performed before those machines, why not now? Here is the video of that conversation, and please pay close attention at around the three minute mark.

Some may say that I am bringing this up, because I am a sore loser. Which is a completely asinine assertion. I’m solely interested in the restoration of our Republic, and to do that I am also interested in Honest and fair elections. How can we have Honest and Fair elections if all the ballots are not counted? The purpose of this post is not to claim voter fraud, but to lay all the facts on the table for the reader to determine if there was election fraud or not. To those that choose not to participate because of how corrupt our system may be. Let me just say that I am still full speed ahead in other goals to fight four our Liberty and Freedom, and to fight for full and complete Restoration, and that I will also be back next election cycle!