 The states are the creator of the central government. They created a limited government with enumerated specific powers, reserving all other powers to themselves. The 10th Amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor permitted by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. What's that fourth word in that sentence? Delegated, does that mean relinquished? Does that mean surrendered? If I am the manager of Chick-fil-A, and I delegate the authority to one of my employees to make the fries, and that employee shows up one day and says, sorry boss, I ain't making no fries. Am I relieved of my responsibility as the manager to make sure that that store makes fries? It is still my responsibility, is it not? I better find somebody to make some fries quick, fast, and in a hurry. So is it illegal for me to find someone else to make the fries? So if the states possess at the deceler- at the Lee resolution the power to declare war, conclude peace, contract alliances, and engage in foreign commerce, and the central government refuses to protect our borders. Are the states relinquished from that responsibility? Is it illegal for them to find someone to protect their borders for them? See how easy this is. Notice that the powers are delegated. This implies a source. The rights belong to the people through the Ninth Amendment. All powers emanate from rights. We have delegated certain powers to the states, because as people, Sam Adams said, the natural rights of the colonists are these first life, second liberty, third property, together with the right to support and defend them. We possess the right to protect our own borders as people, simply because we breathe. We have delegated certain authorities to the states. The states then delegate certain power to the central government to do a job for them. When the power comes from the people, that is a republic. But when the power comes from the government, it's a kingdom. That's important to understand, because there is a fine line that must be maintained by the people to prevent a republic from turning into a kingdom. Madison wrote in Federalist Papers 45, the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former, meaning the power delegated to the federal government, will be exercised principally on external objects, war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, does that ring a bell? Isn't that what the states possessed at the Declaration of Independence? Well, we have delegated those war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. External objects, your federal government was designed to be an agent of the states as a foreign ambassador to foreign nations. It's why we have one president instead of a tribunal or a committee, because that was a discussion. They reasoned, among other reasons, that they needed to have one man because they were working in a world of czars, kings, emperors, and we needed a foreign diplomat to represent the states. Now, this is actually reinforced by the proper understanding of the General Welfare Clause, and I know proper understanding of the General Welfare Clause. The General Welfare Clause was never designed to tell the federal government they could do generally whatever they wanted. The General Welfare Clause was incorporated because during the Articles of Confederation, the president was creating treaties that would benefit one state and detriment the other. So these treaties, these foreign commerce contracts would make New York have a boon and bankrupt North Carolina. So North Carolina's refusing to honor, and this is just a gentle example, not a specific example, but in my example, North Carolina is refusing to honor these treaties because they're losing their shirts and New York is getting all of the benefit from this. So New York and North Carolina are now fighting with each other because North Carolina is not honoring the contract that's gonna get New York their money. And then the foreign nations that we've contracted with are ready to wage war on us for breaking our contractual agreements. So we incorporated the General Welfare Clause to show that not the purpose of the government was to do generally whatever they wanted, but the purpose of the power that was delegated to them was for the general welfare of all the states. You see, we delegated to them war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. And the General Welfare Clause says, when you engage in war, when you engage in peace, when you engage in negotiations and foreign commerce, you cannot benefit one state over the other. You must engage in war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce with the General Welfare of the entire union in mind. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all objects, which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, properties of the people, and the internal order improvement and prosperity of the state. If the federal government was delegated war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, and everything else belongs to the states, are there any powers just floating around on the ether somewhere? Do you see, can you name for me something that is not war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce or everything else? Everything's taken care of here, right? So what that tells you is if the federal government is doing something besides war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, those external objects, don't they have to steal that power from the states? Federal powers are few and enumerated, the state's powers are numerous and reserved, there are no gaps. If the federal government uses the power outside of the delegation in the Constitution, it must steal that power from the states. This is essential to understand when you read what the framers said, remember the purpose of the Constitution is to preserve liberty, to create a union of states, a confederation, not a consolidation, and create and define a limited federal government. So if the federal government is not defined by the Constitution, what defines the federal government? Well the states did in the Constitution. If the federal government is not limited in its power by the Constitution, what is the limit of the federal government's power? Jefferson said they will review this as a seizing of the rights of the states and consolidating them in the hands of the general government with a power to assume and to bind the states, not merely in cases made federal, what are those cases made federal, war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce? He says if you allow the Constitution to not be the limitation of the federal government, then they will not only bind you in war, in negotiation, in foreign commerce, but in all cases whatsoever. That's what Obamacare does by the way. Bind you in all cases whatsoever. If the standard for the government intruding on your liberty for the Supreme Court is they must establish a significant governmental interest and once they establish a significant governmental interest the Supreme Court will give them the power to do just about anything. Obamacare establishes a significant governmental interest in your healthcare, right? Which means it establishes a significant governmental interest in your health, right? Which means it establishes a significant governmental interest in your healthy living. See how lawyers work? Which means they have a significant governmental interest in your healthy living, they have a significant governmental interest in where you live. Maybe you live in a rural area and the government determines it takes too long to get an ambulance to your house. They can determine that people can only live within a certain radius of any given hospital. And you can no longer live outside that radius. They have a significant governmental interest in what you'll eat. Thank you to the Food Safety Modernization Act. They have given themselves the authority to eliminate your gardens. And they'll do this because they now have significant governmental interest in what you eat and they'll tell you we have to ensure that you're living healthy. And that means you can only eat food that has been approved and regulated by the FDA. So you can't have your own chickens, you can't have your own garden unless you allow the FDA to come in and inspect your home. He says that 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. A federal government not limited and defined by the people. A federal government whose only limitation is its own will is a kingdom. For the federal government to enlarge its powers by forced construction of the constitutional charter which defines them. What is that enlargement through forced construction? The way they apply the general welfare clause and the commerce clause. By saying the general welfare clause means we have the power to do anything we want to do instead of saying that's the purpose for the power that we've given. He says to do this is to destroy the meaning and effect of that particular enumeration. What, please answer me this. Why in heaven's name did our framers go through the problems and the debates and the challenges to create specific enumerations for the general government in the constitution if they weren't supposed to stick to it? What is the purpose of even having enumerations? Why didn't we just establish a kingdom and say do whatever you're gonna do and we'll stop you when we wanna stop you. We'll come and chop off your head when you've taken too much because that's how kingdoms work. Your only recourse for a kingdom out of control is to chop the king's head off. See, they didn't want that. They wanted to give us something greater. A government out for people by the people and for the people. So the Madison is saying, if you enlarge, you allow the government to say the general welfare clause means we can do generally whatever we want. You're transforming our present Republican system into an absolute or at best a mixed monarchy. So what do we do? We must seek our answers from the creators of the constitution. Now you will get a great deal of kickback on this. That's what I brought to my Senate President, Don Gates. He looked at me and said, oh really? Have you spoken to Madison lately? I said, well, actually, Mr. Gates, I have. It's called the Federalist Papers. You ought to read them every now and again. And then he scoffed and walked away, mocking the framers of this nation and my idea that they had something to say. I said, I thought you claimed to be a constitutional conservative, Mr. Gates. At which time he turned on his heat heels because he's talking, he's turned his back on me and is walking away. Turns on his heels and looks at me and realizes because we were just come out of a Senate session that there are a large crowd of people behind me, several of them being members of the press. He says, I took it up to support, defend the Constitution. I said, well, maybe you ought to learn something more about that document then. He says, well, Ms. Hawley, I'd be happy to read anything you have to send to me. I sent him this lesson. He sent me an email telling me I needed to be shot or hanged for believing what I'm teaching you today. Why do we have to seek our answers from the Creator? Because the Constitution is a contract and every attorney learns in contract law 101, in their first semester of law school that whenever there is a problem with the application of the contract, whenever there is a provision that seems vague, whenever there's an application that you're not quite sure how it fits in the original contract, contract law 101 tells the judges and the courts that they must return to a legal point in time called the meeting of the minds. This meeting of the minds is where the drafters of the contract sat down and discussed all the provisions within that contract. Why are we creating this contract? What is the purpose of this contract? What will this contract do if we're creating a business? What will be the responsibilities of the entity within that business? And that is when the court then applies those provisions. The ironic thing here is this. The Constitution is the only contract in the United States in which judges and lawyers refuse to follow contract law because they tell you the meeting of the minds is not important. What's important is what you want it to mean now. Jefferson says whenever the general government assumes an undelegated power, it's acts are an unauthoritative void and of no force. So let's look at this. If the government, if the general government assumes an undelegated power, where does that power have to come from? From the states, right? Because it's either more peace negotiation in foreign commerce or it's everything else. So what Jefferson is telling you that whenever the federal general government steals power from the states, it's void, it is no authority. If I steal your car, do I have the legal authority to sell it? Do I? If the federal government is stealing power from the states, Jefferson is saying, that power is no authority. Let me ask you this. If you steal my car from me and I show that I have the title deed and I'm the proper owner, that car has to be given back to me, doesn't it? Even if it's been sold, the buyer of the car loses out. It has to come to me. You have a title deed to your power, states. It's called the Constitution. You don't have to sue to get that power back. You simply need to step up and assert your title deed. Don't change up the deal. I just want to reinforce one point. If you share it, I'm your official, I'm your commission. You're going to get a lot of water. I really felt it here with the comment that you're a local official to say, the only way we stop this is go to court. Well, we're going to, Madison is going to reassert this point. I'm sick of that. That's stupid and wrong. It's stupid. Anybody says that is a fool for a liar. We swore, antiliterate. We swore, well, yeah. We swore the oath to a whole independent constitution. We're going to say, well, citizen, if you have the money to go sue and stop this, then you can get it back. And yet we're sworn guards of the constitution and we're going to allow the federal government or state government, this kind of stealing authority, stillness, and we'll tell our citizens, I can't do anything about it, but you're going to court. That'll cost you $250,000 in the next five years if you like to have it. So that's the only way you get justice in America then. So everybody that destroys the constitution goes against it, gets to keep doing it until we go to court. What was the first provision of the malignant impredictions of the time? Corruption of the court system.