So you want to nullify violations of the Constitution?

Mr Douglas and Whitlow discuss how nullification might work to overcome usurpations by federal officials and agents after first examining the difficulties of reform through election or litigation.

For more see http://constitution.org

• Category

  Film & Animation

[Jon Roland]

Repeal of the 17th Amendment is appealing to people who don't know why it was adopted by popular demand. Appointment of U.S. Senators by state legislatures never worked as intended, and repealing the 17th would make the situation worse, not better, enabling special interests to buy themselves a U.S. senator for a small donation to a few key state legislators. State legislatures are more interested in getting federal funds than in reigning in federal powers. See amend-it.org for good amendments.

[Jeff Maehr]

This is incorrect... we do NOT have to even deal with the federal courts. Something that is unconstitutional, is void on its face and of no force for either the People or the Courts. So if the feds want to play court, they can. We the People simply withdraw our consent, and say NO, and we defend our decision on the state and especially the local level. libertyzone (dot) org. get it going in your area, or continue as slaves to the beast system.

[MyITRcom]

Only until the Snake finishes devouring itself.

[MyITRcom]

All Americans need to do their homework and begin filing for their Soverign Status and make null and void their Corporate Serf Class U.S. Corporate Citizen Status, we all begin doing this and they will soon get the message.

[Kurt Hanson]

Excellent video. It makes a sad point that it is almost impossible to free ourselves from the tentacles of the federal government. But one big step we can take to restore our liberties is to overturn the 17th amendment so that States will have more power in Washington.

[specialks1953]

Basically, we are screwed. We can't get enough people together on Most issues to even start to begin a fight. "We The People", get left in the dust!

[PEATANTICS]

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), Stare decisis or "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed." thus "The Law of the consequences of action" We are not dealing with blank slates when rational. To be free to speak gives permission to the lie, to purjure or bear false witness in defence of an individual rights for "get out of jail free cards" that cost one million dollars? Games of chance, against large numbers law each dice rolled in card houses. Domino effects at work. n-joy

[PEATANTICS]

Political correctness uses indiginous instead of aboriginal or native. Your objection denotes the divide from English law and United States Law. The "sovereign" is "autonomous" as the crowned leader of that nations constitution. All law is passed on account of their stamp of approval. When that "crown" allows a "parliament" to stand that crown has used its autonomy to allow others to make decisions for and on its behalf. Google 1812 note June 1 in the wikipedia.

[Jon Roland]

The correct term, in law and political philosophy, for the individual status you claim, is not "sovereign", but "autonomous". If you use words properly and with care you avoid a lot of confusion, including your own.