Archive for August, 2011


August 17, 2011


14th Amendment Information Websites:

Nullification websites,


     List of Documents Prepared and Hand-Delivered by CSBP


Title of Handout                                                                Date Delivered

1.   Personalized Letter to Gov., Lt. Gov.. AG and each State Senator & Rep.   –    01/31/2011

2.   NULLIFICATION – The “Rightful Remedy” for “ObamaCare”                         –    02/14/2011

3.  Nullification in a Nutshell                                                              –   03/01/2011

4.   It’s Time to Nullify the Real ID Act of 2005 and Its Regulations                  –   03/15/2011

5.  “ObamaCare” is Unconstitutional, therefore it is not a Law!                          –    03/29/2011

6.  There Is No Such Thing As “Case Law”                                                                  –    04/14/2011

7.  The So-called 14th Amendment Was Not Lawfully Adopted or Ratified!    –    04/26/2011

8.  It’s Time to Nullify Real ID and its Regulations                                                   –    05/10/2011

9.  Red tape chokes true liberty                                                                                     –    05/24/2011

10. It is unconstitutional to require and/or issue a “permit”                                 –    06/08/2011

to carry a concealed weapon!

11. American Jurisprudence:  Constitutional Law                                              –    06/21/2011

16 Am, Jur 2d Sections 58 and 59, plus Section 52

12. PennDOT, Real ID, Driver’s License, and Social Security Numbers.              –   07/05/2011

13. Certain Lawyers and Judges Played an Essential Role                                      –   07/19/2011

in the Destruction of Our Lawful Government!

14. What is the Original Intent and True Meaning                                                    –   08/02/2011

of the “Commerce Clause”?

Other Documents Prepared But Not Delivered:

A.    Nullification websites

B.    14th Amendment Information Website

What is the Original Intent and True Meaning of the “Commerce Clause”?

Consider the following parts of the “ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT” by Judge Roger Vinson, of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, PENSACOLA DIVISION, in Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT – Jan. 31, 2011.

[We encourage you to read the entire opinion and the referenced documents cited therein.]


Judge Vinson’s Analysis starts on page 19 and continues through page 37 of 78 in his Order.

… “The Commerce Clause is a mere sixteen words long, and it provides that Congress shall have the power:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. U.S. Const. art I, § 8, cl. 3. …

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

In a frequently cited law review article, one Constitutional scholar has painstakingly tallied each appearance of the word “commerce” in Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist [Papers], and discovered that in none of the ninety-seven appearances of that term is it ever used to refer unambiguously to activity beyond trade or exchange.  … (further examining each and every use of the word that appeared in the state ratification convention reports and finding “the term was uniformly used to refer to trade or exchange”). Even a Constitutional scholar who has argued for an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause (and, in fact, has been cited to, and relied on, by the defendants in this case) has acknowledged that when the Constitution was drafted and ratified, commerce “was the practical equivalent of the word ‘trade.’” See Robert L. Stern, That Commerce Which Concerns More States than One, 47 Harv. L. Rev. 1335, 1346 (1934) (“Stern”).

The Supreme Court’s first description of commerce (and still the most widely accepted) is from Gibbons v. Ogden, [22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824)], which involved a New York law that sought to limit the navigable waters within the jurisdiction of that state. In holding that “commerce” comprehended navigation, and thus it fell within the reach of the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Marshall explained that “Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse.” 22 U.S. at 72. This definition is consistent with accepted dictionary definitions of the Founders’ time. See 1 Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 1773) (commerce defined as “Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick”). And it remained a good definition of the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause interpretation throughout the Nineteenth Century. See, e.g., Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 20-21, 9 S. Ct. 6, 32 L. Ed. 346 (1888) (“The legal definition of the term [commerce] . . . consists in intercourse and traffic, including in these terms navigation and the transportation and transit of persons and property, as well as the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities”).

As Alexander Hamilton intimated in The Federalist, however, it did not at that time encompass manufacturing or agriculture. See The Federalist [Papers] No. 34, at 212-13 (noting that the “encouragement of agriculture and manufactures” was to remain an object of state expenditure).This interpretation of commerce as being primarily concerned with the commercial intercourse associated with the trade or exchange of goods and commodities is consistent with the original purpose of the Commerce Clause (discussed immediately below), which is entitled to “great influence in [its] construction.” See Gibbons, supra, at 188-89 11

[Note; the original “foot note 11” is presented in full at the end of this paper and is incorporated herein by reference.]

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

The Supreme Court has explained this rationale:

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

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

H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 533-34, 69 S. Ct. 657, 93 L. Ed. 865 (1949) (citations and quotations omitted). The foregoing is a frequently repeated history lesson from the Supreme Court. In his concurring opinion in the landmark 1824 case of Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, for example, Justice Johnson provided a similar historical summary:

For a century the States [as British colonies] had submitted, with murmurs, to the commercial restrictions imposed by the parent State; and now, finding themselves in the unlimited possession of those powers over their own commerce, which they had so long been deprived of, and so earnestly coveted, that selfish principle which, well controlled, is so salutary, and which, unrestricted, is so unjust and tyrannical, guided by inexperience and jealousy, began to show itself in iniquitous laws and impolitic measures, from which grew up a conflict of commercial regulations, destructive to the harmony of the States, and fatal to their commercial interests abroad. This was the immediate cause that led to the forming of a convention.

Gibbons, supra, 22 U.S. at 224. In the Supreme Court’s 1888 decision in Kidd v. Pearson, Justice Lamar noted that “it is a matter of public history that the object of vesting in congress the power to regulate commerce . . . among the several states was to insure uniformity for regulation against conflicting and discriminatory state legislation.” See Kidd, supra, 128 U.S. at 21. More recently, Justice Stevens has advised that when “construing the scope of the power granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause . . . [i]t is important to remember that this clause was the Framers’ response to the central problem that gave rise to the Constitution itself,” that is, the Founders had “‘set out only to find a way to reduce trade restrictions.’” See EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 244-45, 103 S. Ct. 1054, 75 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring). The foregoing history is so “widely shared,” [see id. at 245 n.1], that Constitutional scholars with opposing views on the Commerce Clause readily agree on this point. Compare Stern, supra, at 1344 (“There can be no question, of course, that in 1787 [when] the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution . . . considered the need for regulating ‘commerce with foreign nations and among the several states,’ they were thinking only in terms of . . . the removal of barriers obstructing the physical movements of goods across state lines.”), with Bork & Troy, supra, at 858, 865 (“One thing is certain: the Founders turned to a federal commerce power to carve stability out of this commercial anarchy” and “keep the States from treating one another as hostile foreign powers”; in short, “the Clause was drafted to grant Congress the power to craft a coherent national trade policy, to restore and maintain viable trade among the states, and to prevent interstate war.”). Hamilton and Madison both shared this concern that conflicting and discriminatory state trade legislation “would naturally lead to outrages, and these to reprisals and wars.” The Federalist [Papers] No. 7, at 37 (Hamilton); see also The Federalist No. 42, at 282 (Madison) (referencing the “unceasing animosities” and “serious interruptions of the public tranquility” that would inevitably flow from the lack of national commerce power).

To acknowledge the foregoing historical facts is not necessarily to say that the power under the Commerce Clause was intended to (and must) remain limited to the trade or exchange of goods, and be confined to the task of eliminating trade barriers erected by and between the states. The drafters of the Constitution were aware that they were preparing an instrument for the ages, not one suited only for the exigencies of that particular time. See, e.g., McCulloch, supra, 17 U.S. at 415 (the Constitution was “intended to endure for ages to come” and “to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs”) (Marshall, C.J.); Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 373, 30 S. Ct. 544, 54 L. Ed. 793 (1910)” ….

“11  As an historical aside, I note that pursuant to this original understanding and interpretation of “commerce,” insurance contracts did not qualify because “[i]ssuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce.” Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168, 183, 19 L. Ed. 357 (1868) (further explaining that insurance contracts “are not articles of commerce in any proper meaning of the word” as they are not objects “of trade and barter,” nor are they “commodities to be shipped or forwarded from one State to another, and then put up for sale”). That changed in 1944, when the Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate the insurance business under the Commerce Clause. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assoc., 322 U.S. 533, 64 S. Ct. 1162, 88 L. Ed. 1440 (1944). “Concerned that [this] decision might undermine state efforts to regulate insurance, Congress in 1945 enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Section 1 of the Act provides that ‘continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest,’ and that ‘silence on the part of the Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier to the regulation or taxation of such business by the several States.’” Humana Inc. v. Forsyth, 525 U.S. 299, 306, 119 S. Ct. 710,   142 L. Ed.2d 753 (1999) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1011). Thus, ever since passage of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the insurance business has continued to be regulated almost exclusively by the states.”


It is well past time for those in Pennsylvania’s government to nullify Obamacare. Please do it Now!

Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

Certain Lawyers and Judges Played an Essential Role in the Destruction of Our Lawful Government!

Consider the following:

From the “PREFACE” of the book titled:






“It is appropriate that the Centennial observance of the Conference coincides with the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights. The concluding article of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, epitomizes the federal system the Constitution created. It reserves to the states “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states …” Because of this limitation, implicit in the original Constitution, nearly all private law – contracts, negotiable instruments, business organizations, marriage and divorce, for example – and most areas of criminal law, are left for definition and regulation by the legislatures and courts of the several states. For 200 years this autonomy of the States has been enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

For the nation’s first 100 years, this system of legal diversity worked fairly well, although in one sense the Civil War grew out of the decidedly non-uniform state law concerning slavery. But after that war, as the nation came together again, moved westward, expanded its borders, began to industrialize, and acquired the means of transcontinental travel, the need for a common, predictable, nation-wide legal system became crucial. There were at least two methods for unifying the legal systems of the states. State law could be preempted by the Federal Government through repeal of the Tenth Amendment, or by expansive interpretation of the commerce clause and other expressed powers delegated to Congress. Alternatively, the states could create a forum and a vehicle by which they could voluntarily agree to develop, and then separately adopt, uniform legislation on important subjects of common concern. That was the path chosen in 1891 when the Conference was conceived. It is probably not coincidence that the origin of the Conference occurred during the Centennial celebration for the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment.”  (Bold print added for emphasis)


Walter P. Armstrong, Jr., published by West Publishing Company in 1991.  (No ISBN provided)

Since 1892, the Commissioners have implemented all three alternatives stated above!


They and others have intentionally, in essence, abolished the 10th Amendment and greatly expanded the interpretation of the commerce clause and other expressed powers delegated

to Congress – all done unconstitutionally according to the original intent of the Constitution.


From the chapter titled: “THE BEGINNING” (on page 11):

“The report of the first conference says with pardonable immodesty:

             It is probably not too much to say that this is the most important

             juristic work undertaken in the United States since the adoption

             of the Federal Constitution.”

           Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

PennDOT, Real ID, Driver’s License, and Social Security Numbers.

An individual who exercises a right does not need permission from government to exercise that right.

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

Court opinions have created the following criteria with respect to religious freedom:

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

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

Many individuals who do not have a SSN do have a tax ID number.

PennDOT has turned a right to open a checking account or fly on a domestic airline into a privilege, requiring one to have a SSN, which, among other things, violates religious beliefs of many citizens.

Maybe operating the “conveyance of the day” to exercise their right to travel without permission from government is the only options left.

The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness  and safety.  It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”  [Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784, 787; Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579,583]

Hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

          American Jurisprudence:  Constitutional Law

                                     16 Am, Jur 2d Sections 58 and 59, plus Section 52

“2.  State Constitutions [Sections 58 and 59]

Section 58.   Generally

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

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

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

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

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

Section 59.  Effect of emergency

The principles already stated with reference to the exercise of powers during emergency and the relation thereto of the provisions of the United States Constitution[1] are equally applicable to the provisions, inhibitions, and guarantees of the various state constitutions.  Thus, no new power or authority is created by a public emergency, although such a situation may disclose the existence of latent power and may call for liberal construction of constitutional powers.

Many state constitutions or legislation enacted pursuant to such constitutions, provide for the exercise, usually by the state’s governor, of emergency powers, although some do not so provide in specific situations.”

(Note: All citation references have been omitted in the interest of time and space.)

[1]  (from the discussion in Am Jur 16 2d Section 52 on “effect of emergency”  with respect to the Federal Constitution)

Section 52.  –  Effect of emergency

No emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution.  An emergency, however, while it cannot create power, increase granted power, or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon the power granted or reserved, may allow the exercise of power already in existence, but not exercised except during an emergency.

The circumstances in which the executive branch may exercise extraordinary powers under the Constitution are very narrow.  The danger must be immediate and impending, or the necessity urgent for the public service, such as will not admit of delay, and where the action of the civil authority would be too late in providing the  means which the occasion calls for.  For example, there is no basis in the Constitution for the seizure of steel mills during a wartime labor dispute, despite the President’s claim that the war effort would be crippled if the mills were shut down.

IIII  Observation: The Supreme Court has not denied the reality of dangers from foreign or internal conflicts.  Rather, it has recognized the need to respect constitutional requirements even in troubled times.  Security interests may be affected by fluctuations in international trade and the supply of natural resources, by social unrest at home and abroad, and by public disclosure of policy deliberations; but such events cannot routinely justify invasions of privacy or restrictions on expression without devaluing and eventually destroying those rights.  Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that authority of an emergency nature to protect national security information is vested in the President as head of the executive branch and as Commander in Chief.”

Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

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


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


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


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

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

Therefore, when someone applies to government for a “permit” or “license”, he or she is saying that they wish to do something that is unlawful or illegal and to do something that cannot be done without government’s permission. This request admits that the government, as licensor, has authority or jurisdiction over the person, as licensee, and over the subject of the application. Further, the licensee waives their constitutional protections; admits that they will follow all of the statutes, codes, regulations, rules, etc., that exist, and those that will be created in the future, with respect to the requested “permit” or “license”; and that if they are cited for a violation of the said statutes, codes, etc., they are guilty unless they can prove either they did not do that which they are accused of doing, or the citation contains one or more substantive errors.  This is not a right, but rather a privilege given by those in government. What the government gives, the government can take away!

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

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

be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture.”

So, for example, requiring a Citizen of Pennsylvania to obtain a “permit” to carry a gun concealed is prohibited by Article I, Section 21, Right to Bear Arms, of the “Declaration of Rights” in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This Section states: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense    of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” This means exactly what it says and needs no additional interpretation and/or “construction”.  Further, Article I, Section 25, Reservation of Powers in People, of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: “To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.”  (See Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. 79, 80, 91 & 92 (1903))

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

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

Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

The following is a true, correct and complete reproduction of the original document:

Letters to the Editor

        Red tape chokes true liberty

                                                              DAILY LOCAL NEWS, West Chester, Pa. Sun. April 23, 1995

True liberty and freedom is the ability to do something without a permit, license, or reporting from or to the government.  Look at your daily activities; what can you do without a license or permit from the government?

If I want to drive with my dog to the shore to walk on the beach and fish, I may need the following permits, stamps or licenses:

Drivers license, auto registration, safety inspection, emissions inspection, certificate of insurance, dog license, proof of certain dog vaccinations, beach tag, ticket to cross the river, parking permit, and fishing license. Some states require a permit to transport fish back across state lines, some fish require a special stamp, some fish require a report of catch, and if the fish have value I may have to report their value on my income tax return.

If I catch many fish and want to sell a few to offset the cost of my trip, I may need a commercial fishing license, a food handler’s license and special food handling equipment.  This, then, may require me to get a commercial driver’s license since I am transporting a product on the highways. I am now clearly involved in interstate commerce which requires me to file various reports with the federal government as well as to comply with OSHA regulations.

If I buy a six-pack at the shore I should not bring any extras back into Pennsylvania without filing out a special form to pay the tax.  If I bring back more than a couple cases, I may be considered an importer in which case I may be required to spend weeks of time and thousands of dollars on the application. If the rod or reel was made outside the U.S., a sticker should be attached to them indicating that they passed customs.  If I fillet the fish and throw the carcass to the gulls or crabs, I may be liable for a $5,000 federal fine for pollution.  If I throw the carcass out on the side of the road, that is littering, a $200 fine.  If I bury the fish, should I first get a permit to operate a landfill?  If I bury the fish in a field containing an endangered species, I should file an environmental impact statement with the federal and state governments and then get permits to proceed.  I shouldn’t burn the fish without an open-air burning permit.

If I feed the carcass to my dog and he chokes on the bones, I may be guilty of cruelty to animals, a $300 fine.  Oops, I forgot that I left my target gun in the truck of my car.  Boy, I hope the B.A.T.F. doesn’t find out or I may be ambushed by federal agents wearing masks and flack vest.

Ah!  The simple pleasures of life to walk your dog on the beach and fish.  Our founding fathers would be so pleased that only 200 years later our government has done so much to so many for so long.  Perhaps, Congress and state legislatures should pass one new law this year — a law that repeals all laws passed since 1950.  Think of it as spring house cleaning.  We seem to have lost all notions of freedom and liberty.


West Chester

                                                                                                                    James P. MacElree II  is a Common Pleas

                                                                                                              Court judge and former district attorney of  

                                                                                                              Chester County.


  (Note: William Taylor Reil, a constitutional scholar, believes the date “1950”, should actually be 1860)



                 Hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

It’s Time to Nullify Real ID and its Regulations

Fifteen states have passed laws to prohibit implementing Real ID.  Real ID is nothing more than a way for the Federal Government to capture biometric data and have control over our lives.

Real ID regulations require states to meet benchmarks to be in full compliance with the act.  The sad situation is that DOTs and DMVs of states who prohibit implementing Real ID are nevertheless implementing benchmarks.

Notice where Homeland Security says Pennsylvania stands.

REAL ID Implementation Status State / Territory
Submitted full compliance certification packages to DHS1 Conn., Del., Md., S.D., Tenn. (5)
Self-certified: Issuing materially compliant licenses (meeting the first 18 benchmarks) + compliance mark (gold star) Ala., Fla., Ind., Utah (4)
Self-certified: Issuing materially compliant licenses (meeting the first 18 benchmarks) Ark., D.C., Iowa, Kan., Ky., Miss., N.J. (7)
Committed to meeting material compliance but need time Colo., Hawaii, Ill., Neb., Ohio, Puerto Rico, R.I., Texas, Va., W.Va., Wis., Wyo. (12)
Certifiable Enhanced Driver’s License programs N.Y., Mich, Vt., Wash. (4)
Committed to meeting 15 of 18 benchmarks Ariz., Calif., Ga., Minn, Mo., Nev., N.H., N.C., N.D., Pa., S.C., U.S. Virgin Islands (12)
Will not meet four or more benchmarks in the next 12 months Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Idaho, La., Maine, Mass., Mont., N.M., Okla., Ore., N. Marianas2 (12)

Is it constitutional for a government agency to take one’s biometric characteristic without the person’s knowledge, probable cause or a warrant?

Is it constitutional for PennDOT to deny an individual a driver’s license if the individual doesn’t have a social security number due to religious beliefs?

Is it OK for a government agency to subject individuals to identity theft by storing one’s name, address, date of birth and social security number in one database which is accessible by thousands of people, both state employees and contractor personnel?

Does the US Constitution grant the Federal Government powers not listed in Article I, Section 8, of the said document or does the 10th Amendment address non-granted powers?

Below are the 18 benchmarks addressed in the Real ID Regulations.  Notice that the Federal Government wants the facial image captured even if the driver’s license is not issued.  Do you know why?   Does it agree with our American principles?

Interim Benchmarks (Material Compliance Checklist)

Does This State:

  1. Subject each applicant to mandatory facial image capture and retain such image even if a drivers license (DL) or identification card (ID) is not issued.
  1. Have each applicant sign a declaration under penalty of perjury that the information presented is true and correct, and retain this document pursuant to subsection 37.11.
  1. Require an individual to present at least on of the source documents listed in subsections 37.11 (c)(1)(i) through (x) when establishing identity.
  1. Require documentation of:

a) Date of birth

b) Social Security Number

c) Address of principal residence

d) Evidence of lawful status

5.   Have documented exceptions process that meets the requirements established in 37.11 (h)(1)-(3) (if states choose to have such a process)

6.   Make reasonable efforts to ensure that the applicant does not have more than one DL or ID already issued by that state under a different identity.

7.   Verify lawful status through SAVE or another method approved by DHS

8.   Verify Social Security account numbers with the Social Security Administration or another method approved by DHS

9.   Surface (front and back) of cards include the following printed information in Latin alpha-numeric characters:

a) Full legal name

b) Date of birth

c) Gender

d) Unique DL/ID number

e) Full facial digital photo

f) Address of principal residence (with exceptions)

g) Signature ((with exceptions)

h) Date of transaction

i) Expiration date

j) State or territory of issuance

11.             Commit to mark materially compliant DL and IDs with a DHS approved security marking

12. Issue temporary or limited term licenses to all individuals with temporary lawful status and tie license validity to the end of lawful status

13. Have a documented security plan for DMV operations in accordance with the requirements set forth in Subsection 37.11

14. Require all employees handling source documents or issuing DL or IDs to attend and complete the AAMVA approved (or equivalent) fraudulent recognition traing and security awareness training.

15. Conduct name based and fingerprint based criminal history and employment eligibility checks on all employees in covered positions or an alternative procedure approved by DHS

16. Commit to be in material compliance with subparts A through D no later than January 1, 2010 or within 90 days of submission of document, whichever is earlier

17. Clearly state on the face of non-compliant DLs or IDs that the card is not acceptable for official purposes, except for license renewed or reissued under subsection 37.11

It’s time to stop PennDOT ‘s collaboration with Homeland Security.  It’s time to govern by the rule of law, i.e., the US and Pennsylvania Constitutions.  Let’s pass a bill to nullify the Real ID Act and the regulations thereunder and prohibit its implementation in Pennsylvania.

The So-called 14th Amendment Was Not Lawfully Adopted or Ratified!

Our April 12, 2011 handout included the statement: “Until after the War between     the States and the unconstitutional 14th Amendment …”. This may have caused some reader uncertainty. The following are some of the many factual, evidentiary sources that emphatically prove the total lack of validity of the so-called 14th Amendment:

There are many unconstitutional actions that have contributed to the destruction of constitutional governments in the States of the Union and the United States of America, but the so-called “14th Amendment” was the first major unconstitutional step taken after the “War between the States”.  The statement that “the 14th Amendment is and always has been unconstitutional” is supported by extensive and compelling documented evidence.  We offer the following as a starting point and suggest that you obtain copies  of the remaining referenced documents herein either in a law library or on the internet:

1)     State of Utah, Plaintiff, v. Kipp Phillips, et al., Defendants, 540 Pacific Recorder, 2d Series, 936, 941 & 942 (1975)

Justice Ellett (concurring & commenting on the dissenting opinion) states, in part:

… The dissenting opinion asserts that “the Fourteenth Amendment is a part of the Constitution of the United States.” While this same assertion has been made by the United States Supreme Court, that court has never held that the amendment was legally adopted. I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was property approved and adopted. 3

Footnote 3 states: See Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266 (1968).

2)     Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266 (1968)

(This is an excellent discussion of the history of the so-called 14th Amendment.)

3)  Tulane Law Review 28 (1953)


By: Walther J. Suthon, Jr., Esquire

 4) South Carolina Law Quarterly  – Vol. 11 (1959)


By: Pinckney McElwee, Esquire

5)                                   Congressional Record

Proceedings and Debates of the 90th Congress First Session

Volume 113 – Part 12  June 12, 1967 to June 20, 1967

Pages 15309 to 16558

From –Pages 15641 thru 15646  – June 13, 1967


This June 13, 1967 entry in the Congressional Record ends on page 15646 by stating the following:

It should need no further citations to sustain the proposition that neither the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment nor its ratification by the required three-fourths of the States in the Union were in compliance with the requirements of Article V of the Constitution.

When the mandatory provisions of the Constitution are violated, the Constitution itself strikes with nullity the Act that did violence to its provisions. Thus, the Constitution strikes with nullity the purported 14th Amendment.

The Courts, bound by oath to support the Constitution, should review all of the evidence herein submitted and measure the facts proving violations of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution with Article V, and finally render judgment declaring said purported Amendment never to have been adopted as required by the Constitution.

The Constitution makes it the sworn duty of the judges to uphold the Constitution which strikes with nullity the 14th Amendment.

And, as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out for the unanimous Court in Marbury v. Madison ( 1 Cranch 138 @ 179 )

“The framers of the constitution contemplated the instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as the legislature.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government?”

“If such be the real state of things, that is worse than solemn mockery. To proscribe or to take the oath, becomes equally a crime.”

“Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions … courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

The federal courts actually refuse to hear argument, on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and evidence as above.

Only an aroused public sentiment in favor of preserving the Constitution and our institutions and freedoms under constitutional government, and the future security of our country, will break the political barrier which now prevents judicial consideration on the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment.

(Bold print added for emphasis)

The so-called “14th Amendment” is and always has been unconstitutional. All actions taken based on these unlawful, null and void actions, are likewise null and void. It is well past time to recognize and understand the importance of these facts and law and to nullify all actions based on the so-called 14th Amendment. For a house build on sand must surely fall. We are experiencing the fall of our State and federal governments.

And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (The Holy Bible -John 8:32)

           Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

   There Is No Such Thing As “Case Law”

                                                   By William Taylor Reil

     The Founding Fathers who wrote the founding documents of both the States and the United States of America knew nothing of “case law”.  They were well-educated men and were learned in the law. Almost all were also devout Christians.  Until after the War Between the States and the unconstitutional so called 14th Amendment, State Supreme Courts provided the final decisions and opinions in most cases. The courts clearly understood the difference between the State and the Federal governments before 1868. That is not to say that corruption did not exist in government, including the courts, before that time. In fact, history confirms that the original method of appointing judges to the courts in Pennsylvania was changed by a constitutional amendment in 1850 to that of electing them because the Courts were so corrupt at that time.

The case method, which ultimately led to case decisions being called “case law”, was created by a law student at Harvard named Christopher Columbus Langdell. Langdell had first gone to Harvard College as a sophomore in 1848 at age 22, an age at which most students had already graduated. He stayed at Harvard College for only a year and did not graduate. After reading law for a year and a half at a law office, Langdell entered the Harvard Law School in November of 1851 where he studied for three years. During this time he repeatedly expounded to others about his “case method”. Among those who listened to Langdell with great admiration was a young chemistry student named Charles William Eliot. Charles Eliot became the President of Harvard in 1869. For sixteen years after leaving Harvard, Langdell practiced law in New York City where he, Langdell, become known as the “lawyer’s lawyer”.

In 1870 President Eliot sought out Langdell and made him Dane Professor of the Harvard Law School.  Professor Langdell immediately introduced his “case method” at Harvard. Shortly thereafter all of the other law professors then at Harvard left because they disagreed with the validity of the “case method” as a way of teaching law. The “case method” was soon introduced at the other “ivy league” law schools, and by the early 20th century, it was used in all of America’s law schools. C.C. Langdell and James Barr Ames, an Assistant Professor under Langdell and Langdell’s successor as Dane Professor of the Harvard Law School in 1895, changed the way law was taught in America. More importantly they were very influential in eliminating the use of the Bible, history, Blackstone’s Commentaries, the Constitutions and references to prior case opinions as the basis of authorities for court decisions, to primarily, if  not exclusively, using only case opinion references.

Ultimately, the repeated use of the term “case law” by attorneys and judges, who had been taught by the “case method”, led to the general acceptance of the term (“case law”) in the twentieth century. However, in 1842 Justice Story stated, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States in Swift v. Tyson [16 Peter 1, 18 (1842)], the following concerning case decisions and opinions:

“In the ordinary use of language it will hardly be contended that the decisions of Courts constitute laws. They are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are; and not of themselves laws.”

This was repeated in Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 83 (1937)


                        Only God, the People and their Legislators can make law.


                                         There is no such thing as “Case Law”



      Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

“ObamaCare” is Unconstitutional, therefore it is not a Law!

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.

[Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174,176 (1803)]

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

[Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)]



The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

[Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”

[Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

Constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion and exercise:  Vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.

[Watson vs. City of Memphis, 373 US 526, 535 (1963)]

The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.

[Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516 (1884)]

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

[16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256]

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

[The Federalist Papers, No. 78: Hamilton]

   Can only the courts determine that “ObamaCare” is Unconstitutional?  NO!


“Section 2.  All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. ….”

[Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania]

So, any individual, always being responsible for his decisions, can determine if something is unconstitutional. Since the people give their authority to those in government, at all levels, in trust

to act as the people’s servants/agents, each and every individual in government, as a matter of constitutional duty and responsibility per their “oath of office”, must determine if what they are going to do is constitutional before they act and whether the action(s) of others in government is or has been done constitutionally. If anything is determined to be unconstitutional, it is similarly the duty and responsibility of those in government to do everything lawfully possible to correct the error(s).

Therefore, those in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government in Pennsylvania should immediately declare “ObamaCare” to be unconstitutional and take the “Rightful Remedy”        to not implement or enforce this unconstitutional Act in any way. This is lawful State Nullification!


        Prepared and hand-delivered by those in the CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

It’s Time to Nullify the Real ID Act of 2005 and Its Regulations

The Director of Homeland Security (DHS) has once again extended implementation of the Real ID Act of 2005 until January 2013.  Fifteen states have passed bills to nullify or prohibit implementation of Real ID in their states and nine additional states have passed resolutions denouncing Real ID.  What most legislators don’t realize is that even though laws have been passed to nullify or prohibit Real ID, state Departments of Transportation (DOT) or Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMV) are implementing Real ID regulation benchmarks including facial recognition biometrics.  PennDOT is also implementing these DHS regulation benchmarks.

In addition, under DHS Real ID regulations, state DOTs or DMVs are implementing international standards, making the driver’s license an international ID Card.  In March 2007, the DHS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking document stated in footnote 17 of page 68:

“17 The relevant ICAO standard is ICAO 9303 Part 1 Vol 2, specifically ISO/IEC 19794-5 – Information technology – Biometric data interchange formats – Part 5: Face image data, which is incorporated into ICAO 9303.”

Real ID is our nation’s global enrollment system of identification and financial control.  ICAO is an acronym for International Civil Aviation Organization, an agency of the United Nations.

Real ID is unconstitutional and PennDOT is violating our rights while they implement Real ID benchmarks.  Violations include:

  1. Our right to privacy.  PennDOT is capturing biometric data (using facial recognition software) without probable cause or warrant and storing the data in a database mandated by DHS regulations.  This is no different than taking a fingerprint or DNA of an individual.  Although we have not done anything wrong, privacy is not about hiding a wrong; it’s about an inherent, God-given human right and a necessity of maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.  A high resolution camera operator could easily determine an individual’s identity via biometrics.
  2. Our right to religious freedom.  “…no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.” ( Article I, Section 3, Pennsylvania Constitution )  PennDOT will not issue or renew a driver’s license if the individual does not have a social security number.   If participating in social security, an insurance program, violates my right of conscience, why do elected officials allow PennDOT to continue to violate the Declaration of Rights?  DHS regulations require the social security number be included in the database.
  3. Subjecting us to identity theft.  We “…have certain inherent and indefeasible rights… of acquiring, possessing and protecting property….” ( Article I, Section 1, Pennsylvania Constitution)  By following DHS regulations, PennDOT has established a database which includes one’s name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number.  Identity theft happened in New York State last year.  Over 200 individuals had their identities stolen.  The thieves made off with over $1M before getting caught.  It only takes a couple of bad apples with access to the database to steal one’s ID.


   Nullification in a Nutshell

WRITTEN BY PATRICK KREY  – “New American” Magazine  – THURSDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2010

The “Principles of 98,” as they came to be known, are rarely discussed in modern history lectures even though these are integral to understanding how our federal Constitution was intended to function. These are the principles of state interposition or nullification that assert that if the federal government fails to check itself through one of its three branches, then it would be up to the states to rein in the feds.

The main basis for the theory is that the states created the national government when they joined the compact and not the other way around. The states therefore retained the power to judge for themselves the constitutionality of federal laws and reserved the right to refuse to enforce them if they went beyond their constitutionally delegated powers. As a matter of fact, nullification was used even before the implementation of the Constitution when the Colonists nullified laws made by the British Monarchy. The concept of a state nullifying a federal law simply means that a state refuses to comply with the law or permit its enforcement within state boundaries.

The man widely regarded as the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, described just how a federal system would work in his essay Federalist No. 51. Madison, encouraging his fellow countrymen to ratify the newly drafted Constitution, described a system of horizontal as well as vertical checks and balances between the federal and state governments — a system known as federalism. “Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

Madison, joined by Thomas Jefferson, would later go on to expand upon this in the famous Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. The federal government had recently passed the blatantly unconstitutional and shameful Alien and Sedition Acts to silence and intimidate political enemies. Those despicable acts were instituted by advocates of unwritten constitutional power and a more robust central government. Both Jefferson and Madison argued that the states constitutionally had the right to refuse not only to comply with such unconstitutional actions of the federal government, but also to actively prevent the feds from enforcing them within their state boundaries.

These visionaries and their resolutions gave a voice to a peaceful revolution of constitutional principles that would govern this great nation for years to come. Many states have in fact utilized state nullification to check the federal government throughout the history of our Republic. From the Fugitive Slave Act to unpopular tariffs, states did indeed nullify federal laws they found to be unconstitutional.

Nullification has started to be mentioned in the news, as states have once more started to utilize the practice to resist federal overreaching. Many states have either passed or proposed legislation or amendments to their state constitutions that nullify federal laws in the areas of firearms, medical marijuana, and healthcare, to name just a few.

Re-produced and Hand-delivered by members of CSBP, c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

NULLIFICATION – The “Rightful Remedy” for “ObamaCare”

Please seriously consider and then lawfully act upon the following facts and law:

Pennsylvania was one of the original States that ratified the1787 Constitution, which created the United States of America as a constitutional republican form of government.

The States, as originally intended, are the superiors parties to the Constitution for the United States of America. This Compact gave limited, enumerated powers to the central government, which the Framers and the States’ Conventions of their People had created. (The creator is always superior to its creation, unless specifically stated otherwise) The 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America, ratified on December 15, 1791, further clarified the limitations of the delegated powers granted to the USA and the States by the People. Therefore, the United States government, particularly its Courts, are not superior to the States, except with respect to the limited powers specifically enumerated in the federal Constitution.  Thus, each State of the Union retains the lawful authority to challenge any action of those in the government of the United States of America that exceeds its specific, limited, enumerated powers. This is called “Interposition” or “Nullification”.

Kentucky became the 15th State of these United States of America in 1792.

In November of 1799, the word “Nullification” was used for the first time in a Resolution passed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky in support of its and Virginia’s1798 Resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectfully.  These Resolutions proclaimed the “Alien and Sedition Laws” to be usurpations of powers delegated to Congress. Kentucky and Virginia, while pronouncing their continued commitment to remain in the Union, emphatically stated that they could not stand silent and thus seemingly acquiesce to these gross and blatant usurpations of powers not delegated to the central government in the Constitution. (See: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.’s 2010 Book – titled: Nullification – How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century  (ISBN 978-1-59698-149-2))

Pennsylvania is one of the 26 States of the Union that are Plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, commonly known as “Obamacare”, in the Case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. (Case Docket No.: 3:10-CR-91-RV/EMT)

Governor Tom Corbett, then Pennsylvania’s Attorney General, officially claimed that “ObamaCare” is unconstitutional when, on March 23, 2010, he joined Pennsylvania in the Case filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division by the State of Florida’s AG, Pam Bondi.

On January 31, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson ruled that “Obamacare” is unconstitutional.

In his January 31st decision, Judge Vinson discussed at length, starting on page 19 of his 78 page opinion, the history of the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution for the United States. He confirmed, using extensive documented references, that the original intent of the “Commerce Clause” was to make interstate commerce “regular” or consistent among the several States of the Union, thus encouraging interstate commerce by eliminating the then destructive practice by several States, under the Articles of Confederation, of imposing various tariffs and taxes on products sold across State lines. He also confirmed that insurance contracts were not considered by the Framers to be “articles of commerce”.

On January 31, 2011, before knowing about the ruling by Judge Vinson, members of the County Sheriff Brigades of Pennsylvania (CSBP) hand-delivered a one page, personalized letter and a copy of Sheriff Richard Mack’s booklet titled “The Victory For State Sovereignty” to the office of the Governor, Lt. Gov., Acting AG and each State Senator and Representative. Please read, or re-read, these documents.

It is well past time for this State to send a clear, emphatic message to all those in Washington, D.C.  that: “ObamaCare” is, and always has been, unconstitutional, and thus is null and void.  Therefore, Pennsylvania shall not participate in this unlawful and very costly “federal regulatory program”.

Nullification is the “Rightful Remedy” for “ObamaCare”.       

County Sheriff Brigades of Pennsylvania

c/o P.O. Box 211, Elverson, Pa. 19520

County Sheriff Brigades of Pennsylvania

c/o P.O. Box 211

Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520

January 31, 2011

State Senator Dominic Pileggi

Main Capitol Building, Room 350

State Capitol Complex

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

Dear Senator Pileggi,

Enclosed with this letter from CSBP is an 18-page booklet titled: “The Victory For State Sovereignty”. This document, written by Retired Arizona Sheriff, Richard Mack, is an abridged presentment of the 1997 opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Mack/Printz v. USA case. The booklet also contains a “forward” and “summary” by Sheriff Mack. We sincerely request that you read this very short booklet and apply its lessons to all attempts by those in the United States government to impose “federal regulatory programs” on any Pennsylvania Citizen and/or on the Pennsylvania government or any of the political subdivisions thereof.

This case was a 10th Amendment challenge, initiated by Sheriff Richard Mack, to the constitutionality of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violation Prevention Act.

Justice Scalia delivered the majority opinion of the Court.  The Court’s Order states:

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivision, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

There are many alleged laws that are either unconstitutional or unconstitutionally applied.

We also realize that many individuals in government, particularly attorneys, say that “you must do what the United States government says” or that “the issue is a federal matter and the State cannot question it.” Clearly, as the Mack case opinion confirms, those in State government must always question the constitutionality of everything today, especially the commands of the United States government.  Each branch of the State government has a duty and responsibility to “nullify” unconstitutional mandates. Some current examples of federal regulatory programs that we think should be immediately “nullified” are: “Obamacare” (2010), “Real ID” (2005) and the “Food Safety Act” (2010).  There are obviously many other alleged laws which must be nullified.

To learn more about nullification, we recommend that you obtain and read the 2010 book: NULLIFICATION – HOW TO RESIST FEDERAL TYRANNY IN THE 21ST CENTURY by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.  – ISBN 978-1-59698-149-2.

We look forward to continue working with you and others to help understand and lawfully solve the very serious problems that confront us all.

Sincerely yours,

William Taylor Reil and Donna Fike

Co-Coordinators of CSBP