MODEL RESOLUTION Recognizing That a Baby Born Alive Following a Botched Abortion Has the Same Rights as Any Other Baby Born Alive

RIGHT TO LIFE - Everyone has the Right to Life

RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THAT A BABIY BORN ALIVE FOLLOWING A BOTCHED ABORTION PROCEDURE HAS THE SAME RIGHTS AS ANY OTHER BABY BORN ALIVE

by Diane Rufino, 2019

“Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by Due Process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years. So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution and even from the traditions of the American people.” [Justice Antonin Scalia, in an interview]

PURPOSE:  Mother Teresa once said: “I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a woman can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” The sad reality in our society today is that a baby born following an abortion is NOT valued the same as a baby that is wanted by its mother. Although it would seem only fair and right that all babies born alive be treated the same, have equal access to healthcare professionals, and be provided the same level of care, the truth is that they are not. A baby unwanted by its mother apparently is doomed to carry that rejection with it even through the horrible ordeal of an abortion procedure and then as it lays helpless on a medical table. A baby born alive following a botched abortion procedure did not ask to be created and we all too often forget that. In the case where mercy has allowed the poor unwanted, unloved baby to survive, we MUST recognize that it is still a creation of God and we must accept it into our community of loving, caring human beings. This Resolution addresses that baby’s humanity and it’s right to life and to the Equal Application and Equal Protection of our Constitution and our laws.

The sad reality in our society today is that a baby born following an abortion is NOT valued the same as a baby that is wanted by its mother. Although it would seem only fair and right that all babies born alive be treated the same, have equal access to healthcare professionals, and be provided the same level of care, the truth is that they are not. A baby unwanted by its mother apparently is doomed to carry that rejection with it even through the horrible ordeal of an abortion procedure and then as it lays helpless on a medical table. A baby born alive following a botched abortion procedure did not ask to be created and we all too often forget that. In the case where mercy has allowed the poor unwanted, unloved baby to survive, we MUST recognize that it is still a creation of God and we must accept it into our community of loving, caring human beings. This Resolution addresses that baby’s humanity and it’s right to life and to the Equal Application and Equal Protection of our Constitution and our laws.

Whereas, when a woman goes to her OBGYN to confirm her pregnancy, to hopefully see an ultrasound, and to hopefully even hear a heartbeat, the resounding view is that “a new human life has been created”;

Whereas, a woman who values life, even at the earliest stage of pregnancy, sees herself as carrying a “baby” while a woman who doesn’t want anything in her womb sees that same situation as nothing more than a mass of unwanted cells;

Whereas, history is replete with situations where one group of human beings degrades and diminishes other groups of human beings, thus making it easy to then discriminate against them, subjugate them, and even to dispose of them;

Whereas, the right to an abortion was articulated by the Supreme Court in 1973, in the infamous case, Roe v. Wade which addressed a challenge to a Texas statue criminalizing abortion. Roe’s attorneys argued that women have a right to an abortion under her right to privacy, including her right to control her reproductive health and to determine when to reproduce. [Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)];

Whereas, the Court has recognized that a general right of personal privacy does not exist under the Constitution, but inferred that certain zones of privacy can be found in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (‘the roots of that right’). The Supreme Court articulated this point in the case Griswold v Connecticut; (1965) which involved a challenge to a Connecticut criminal statute that prohibited married couples from using contraceptives and made their doctors liable for aiding and abetting; [Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)];

Whereas, the Court concluded in Roe v. Wade that the inherent right of privacy (which the Court articulated in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut) was broad enough to include the right of a woman to control her fertility and her ability to reproduce (ie, to control what happens with and inside her womb). In other words, the Court concluded that a woman’s right to an abortion was a fundamental right. Conservative members of the Court dissented strongly to this ruling and some have lumped it with Griswold as the worst, most progressive opinions handed down by the majority;;

Whereas, until the decision in Roe v Wade, women in the United States did not have a constitutional right to an abortion. Rather, each state had the ability to regulate abortion within its borders, as they had done throughout their history. The US Congress could not enact abortion legislation because the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to do so (it was not yet a recognized right);

Whereas, Roe v Wade reached the Supreme Court as part of a growing movement in the US to recognize and liberalize abortion law; arguments in favor of abortion rights centered on women’s equality, equality in the workplace, public health, overpopulation, sexual freedom, and feminism;

Whereas, the opinion in Roe was based upon what abortion advocates wanted women to be able to do. And the country soon found out what women were capable of, with respect to the unborn. They sought abortions to terminate the life of the unborn they either found too inconvenient to continue carrying or they didn’t want to care for when born, they proudly march and carry signs to attest to the joy of being “free” from an unwanted pregnancy, and now they applaud and rejoice whenever a bill is passed in a state house to expand the right to include abortions up until birth;

Whereas, abortion rights have had certain horrific and unconscionable of unintended consequences, including the offending of our national conscience, alienating our country from the protection of God, the suffering of clinic workers (what they are forced to witness), the suffering (psychologically and emotionally) of the women who abort their babies, and the death of countless innocent lives;

Whereas, the recent passage of “late-term abortion” laws in several states, removing state interests in preserving the pregnancy up until delivery, has shocked our national conscience and has caused society to renew its discussion and debate on abortion and what rights do women actually have or what rights they actually should have;

Whereas, the Court went out of its way not to refer to the unborn fetus as ‘a “person” because to do so would bring the unborn under the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment [“…. nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”];

Whereas, the Court acknowledged that the Constitution provides no definition of “person” or “personhood” and then came to its own conclusion that “person’ was used in the Amendment in a way that suggested that it did not include the unborn – that it referred to someone outside the womb, able to walk around….”;

Whereas, the Court ignored historical precedent, especially at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, that “personhood” and “life” were considered synonymous; and that a fetus was considered a “life” or a “person” per the very wording of various state abortion statues (criminal statutes) at the time of “quickening” or earlier;

Whereas, in fact, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, the individual states widely recognized children in utero as persons. Nearly every state had criminal laws proscribing abortion, and most of these statutes were classified among ‘offenses against the person.’ (it is clear that the word ‘person’ referred to the fetus”);

Whereas, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, twenty‐three states and six territories referred to the fetus as a ‘child’ in their statutes proscribing abortion;

Whereas, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, nine of the ratifying states explicitly valued the lives of the preborn and their pregnant mothers equally by providing the same range of punishment for killing either during the commission of an abortion;

Whereas, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, ten states (nine of which had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment) considered abortion to be either manslaughter, assault with intent to murder, or murder (a murder or manslaughter charge legally requires the victim to be considered a “person”);

Whereas, the only plausible explanation for the state laws and policies above is that the legislatures considered the mother and child to be equal in their personhood;

Whereas, layman’s dictionaries at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment treated the concepts of humanity and personhood interchangeably. (That is “life” = “personhood”);

Whereas, a look back through history shows that there were no laws to specifically protect the unborn prior to birth, and that makes sense in light of the generally-accepted definition of “personhood.” A pregnant woman was carrying a “life,” and hence she was carrying a new person;

Whereas, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, Americans, state lawmakers, and government officials understood personhood to include the unborn, just as Blackstone defined it, and therefore a historical analysis shows that society in 1868 viewed personhood and life in much the same way that pro-lifers today view it;

Whereas, besides ignoring historical tradition, the Supreme Court further ignored its own Constitutional/Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence (established by Snyder v. Massachusetts in 1934) in determining which fundamental rights are incorporated on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The question the Court must ask is whether the asserted right “is so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” and the Court is obligated to use the time period of the Amendment’s adoption to make that determination. [Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934)];

Whereas, the fact that a majority of the States at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, and especially those that ratified it, had restrictions on abortions for at least a century should have been strong indication to the Court that the asserted right to an abortion is not “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” [Snyder v. Massachusetts, pg. 105 of the opinion];

Whereas, William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, a treatise that had profound influence on legal thinking and which was used in American law schools, was relied on by the Supreme Court, and continues to be cited even today in Supreme Court decisions (cited at least 10-12 times each year.) expressly recognized that personhood and the right to life existed before birth. He set forth a simple and clear legal standard: “Where life can be shown to exist, legal personhood exists.” [Blackstone’s Commentaries];

Whereas, it is clear that the fundamental mis-conception at the heart of the Roe case was that a fetus can never be a “life” and hence could never come under the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment which speaks to rights of “persons.” In other words, the case was premised on an erroneous assumption;

Whereas, had the Supreme Court had looked at the “life” or the unborn/fetus as opposed to its “viability”; that is, if it had made the proper assumption that a fetus, at least at a certain point, becomes a living being, and hence a “life,” then the Constitution and our laws provide protection of that unborn, including observance of its fundamental rights;

Whereas, the Declaration of Independence professes: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….”;

Whereas, the minute an individual is created and blessed with life, he or she is endowed with inalienable rights, including the right to Life. Moreover, government is instituted for the primary purpose of secure those rights. It makes no difference whether that individual is 15 years old, 40 years old, 10 years old, 1 month old, or 20 weeks old. The minute it became a living being, it is understood to be entitled to the most essential of all inalienable (those attaching to our very humanity) rights;

And whereas, had the Supreme Court recognized life and hence personhood in a fetus (again, at least at a certain point), then it’s analysis in Roe v. Wade would not have been “Woman’s Fundamental Right to an Abortion” vs. State Interest (if the state even wanted to exercise an interest) in preserving the life of the unborn” but rather the correct one which would have been “Woman’s Right to an Abortion” vs. “The Unborn’s Right to Life”;

Whereas, when we recognize an unborn fetus as an independent life, a woman’s right to have an abortion will never be broad enough to include the termination of a pregnancy that contains a living fetus. And therefore, just because she may not “want” it, it is still nonetheless a living human being, a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and absolutely entitled to Equal Protection under all our laws;

Whereas, if we will follow history and its understanding of “life” inside the womb, then countless living unborn babies will no longer have to be stripped of rights, equality, and even life. They will no longer have to be sacrificed at the altar of a woman’s broad right to an abortion.

THEREFORE, Be it Resolved that in consideration of all of the above, a unborn baby is absolutely capable of being considered a “life’ and therefore a “person” for purposes of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our laws;

Be it Further Resolved that an unborn baby is entitled to the Equal Application of all our laws and to the Equal Protection of them;

Furthermore, a health care practitioner who is present at the time an unborn baby is born following an abortion procedure, must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital;

Furthermore, a health care practitioner or other employee present at such time has an affirmative obligation and duty to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement;

And furthermore, any person who violates the requirements will be subject to criminal penalties (likely to include a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.

Finally, Be it Resolved that an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.

 
References:

Diane Rufino, “Why Can’t Women be Both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life? It’s Possible With Common-Sense Limitations on Abortion,” For Love of God and Country Blog, February 1, 2019. Referenced at: https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2019/02/01/why-cant-women-be-both-pro-choice-and-pro-life-its-possible-with-common-sense-limitations-on-abortions/

Revelations from Norma McCorvey (aka, Jane Roe) of Roe v. Wade – https://www.liveaction.org/news/7-powerful-quotes-from-jane-roe-of-roe-v-wade/

Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] full text of majority opinion – https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), summary – https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496

Merle H Weiner, “Roe v. Wade Case (US),” Oxford Constitutional Law – http://oxcon.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-mpeccol/law-mpeccol-e564   [Under an “originalist” approach, the Court would have had to determine what the word “persons” was understood to mean when the 14th Amendment was written and ratified. “Originalism” is often equated with “Textualism” (where judges look at the meaning of the words and intent at the time they were written) A honest analysis would have looked not only at the definition of the term “persons” around the time of 1868, but also at society’s view of abortion at that time. In fact, for a claimed right to be covered by the 14th Amendment and hence free from government/state regulation, that right would have had to have been considered an essential liberty right at the time the Amendment was adopted. In other words, the Court should have asked two questions: “What did the term ‘persons’ mean back in 1868?” And, “Was abortion considered a fundamental liberty right back in 1868?” [That is, the Court should have asked: Was the asserted right to an abortion “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934)].

Joshua J. Craddick, Joshua J. Craddock, “Protecting Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 40, No. 2 (2017). Referenced at: file:///C:/Users/diane/Downloads/SSRN-id2970761.pdf   [Abstract: What should the legal status of human beings in utero be under an originalist interpretation of the Constitution? Other legal thinkers have explored whether a national “right to abortion” can be justified on originalist grounds. Assuming that it cannot, and that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey were wrongly decided, only two other options are available. Should preborn human beings be considered legal “persons” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, or do states retain authority to make abortion policy?

The late Justice Scalia famously argued for the latter position and pledged he would strike down a federal ban on abortion. But is this view consistent with the original meaning of the term “person”? Using originalist interpretive methods, this paper argues that preborn human beings are legal “persons” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.]

MODEL Resolution to Recognize Second Amendment Supremacy in Counties

WE THE PEOPLE - Protect the Constitution (Gun Protection)

by Diane Rufino, January 2019

RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE SECOND AMENDMENT SUPREMACY  in ___________ COUNTY

A Resolution for North Carolina

Resolution opposing any federal or state law that has the effect of restricting the individual right of a citizen of sound mind in North Carolina to keep and bear arms as recognized and protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 30 of the North Carolina state constitution.

WHEREAS, the colonies in North America fought for their independence from Great Britain united under the principal of Individual Sovereignty, which holds that individuals have the inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property and other forms of Happiness, that they have the right to design and form an appropriate government to secure and protect those rights, and they have the right always to alter or abolish that government in favor of one that better serves its beneficial purpose. These rights were enumerated in the Declaration of Independence; and

WHEREAS, the federal government in the first ten amendments to the US Constitution (the Bill of Rights) has been forced and tasked to recognize these rights, including other liberty and civil rights, and instructed to refrain from violating or burdening said rights; and

WHEREAS, the individual States in their individual state constitutions, have also recognized these inalienable rights, including other liberty and civil rights; and

WHEREAS, the paramount right to Life also implies the equally paramount right to protect it, defend it, and to safeguard it; and

WHEREAS, the gravest threat to Life is by firearms being used by an individual or group or army that has an intent to inflict grievous injury or to take a life; and

WHEREAS, because the gravest threat to Life is by firearms, and because the history of England/Great Britain and colonial America under the reign of King George III has confirmed that firearms have been used by governments to suppress, coerce, intimidate, silence, and threaten its citizenry (especially those it deemed to be a threat), our Founders deemed it necessary to include the Second Amendment;

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment was the amendment that was proposed most forcibly by the individual states in their ratification conventions; and

WHEREAS, the right of self-defense is acknowledged in the Second Amendment and in similar amendments in state constitutions that assert both the individual right to keep and bear arms (for self-defense and self-protection) and the collective right to do the same (when assembled in a militia to protect the state); and

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment and similar amendments in state constitutions acknowledge that individuals have the right to use the same caliber of firearms that an evil-intentioned individual, group, or even the government has access to; and

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees: “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”; and

WHEREAS, the words “Shall not” mean “Must not,” and therefore the Second Amendment can be read as follows: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, MUST NOT be infringed”; and

WHEREAS, Article I, Section 30 of the North Carolina state constitution guarantees: “Militia and 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice”; and

WHEREAS, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms for defense of Life, Liberty, and Property is regarded as an Inalienable Right by the People of _______________ County; and

WHEREAS, the right to keep and bear firearms is a protected right ONLY when those firearms are used for lawful purposes, such as self-defense, self-protection (of self and family, as well as others unable to protect themselves), and NOT when used to commit acts of violence, to torture or intimidate others, to further criminal activity, or to frighten others; and

WHEREAS, the People have a God-given right to protect themselves and an obligation to provide for the common defense; and

WHEREAS, a well-armed citizenry is the best protection against tyrannical government; and

WHEREAS, the right to self-defense and specifically (for purposes of this resolution), the right to keep and bear arms for that purpose, is an inherent right and therefore protected by Due Process. That is, the right cannot be denied to an individual of sound mind and body without a full opportunity to defend it. Consequently, nothing above should be taken to protect the right to keep and bear arms to an individual of unsound mind who has been proven to pose a threat to himself/herself and to others; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), affirmed the operative clause of the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” and therefore is the controlling clause. The Court further affirmed that the fundamental or central individual right is unconnected with service in a militia and is associated with the right to self-defense and for self-protection, which are lawful purposes; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), affirmed that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms,” as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, and

WHEREAS, the right enshrined in the Second Amendment and in Article I, Section 30 of the NC state constitution needs no justification such as economic, recreational, etc for it is as inherent and fundamental a right as the right to life itself (also needing no justification); and

WHEREAS, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 78, asserts, “…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 principal; 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”; and

WHEREAS, Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788 wrote, “Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American… the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”; and

WHEREAS, it is the desire of the People of _________________ County to declare their strong affirmation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and Article I, Section 30 of the NC state constitution which recognize and guarantee protection for the inalienable and individual right to keep and bear arms; and

WHEREAS, the People wish to remind those in local government that each official has taken an oath to support and defend the US Constitution and the North Carolina state constitution, as well as those laws passed in faithful and legal adherence to such constitutions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that all federal laws, regulations, judicial opinions, and other edicts for the Country at Large which pretend to restrict THE PEOPLES’ arms in any fashion whatsoever are unlawful as in violation of our Declaration of Independence; and are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States; and as in violation of the Second Amendment; and

AND BE IT RESOLVED that all North Carolina state laws, regulations, judicial opinions, and other edicts purporting to apply to the State at Large which pretend to restrict THE PEOPLES’ arms in any fashion whatsoever are unlawful as in violation of our Declaration of Independence; and are unconstitutional as in violation of Article I, §8, clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the United States [those clauses permitting the Congress to require Citizens of the States to be armed and trained]; as in violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; and as in violation of Article I, §30 of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina; and

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the _____________ County Board of Supervisors that the Board intends to vigorously uphold the Right of the Citizens to be armed and to that effect, will encourage citizens to register for weapons training and firearms safety training (and perhaps even set aside funding for such programs); and

FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED that the good and decent People of ____________ County encourage their Sheriffs to use the aforementioned truths to guide their exercise of discretion in their jobs; that said truths will support and guide their sound discretion to not enforce any unconstitutional firearms law against any citizen of sound mind and body; and

AND BE IT RESOLVED that the good and decent People of ______________ County demand that the Board of County Commissioners do not appropriate funds for the expansion of prisons for the purpose of incarceration of individuals arrested for violating unconstitutional gun control laws or for capital construction of building space and purchase of storage systems to store weapons seized pursuant to any unlawful piece of legislation.

 

**** Note that conservative members of the NC General Assembly want to remove the last sentence of Article I, Section 30. Outgoing representative Michael Speciale (R-Craven County) sponsored House Bill 145 (HB 145) in 2017 which would have removed it, but it did not pass. A similar initiative will no doubt be re-admitted in the future.

SIGNATURES:

 

_________________________          _________________________            _________________________

 

_________________________          _________________________            _________________________

 

_________________________          _________________________            _________________________

 

**** Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, has a video out about local Second Amendment Protection Resolutions and about “Second Amendment Sanctuaries.”  It is titled “The Best Second Amendment Resolution By Far,” and addresses an excellent Model Resolution written by the profound legal expert Publius Huldah. Check the video out.  –   https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/the-best-2nd-amendment-resolution-by-far-so-far/

(MODEL) RESOLUTION to Support & Encourage State Nullification Bills

- 00005

by Diane Rufino, February 21, 2019

I wrote the following Model Resolution in support of the various grassroots organizations I volunteer with, in support of the Tenth Amendment Center and its work, and in support of the doctrines of Nullification and Interposition which are the true rightful remedies to push back against over-reach and abuse of power by the federal government.

I shared this Resolution with my state representatives in the North Carolina General Assembly, several of whom know their history and support Nullification, and I know they will continue to introduce bills that reject federal intrusion on the state’s Tenth Amendment reserved powers. In submitting this Resolution to them, I explained: “As the 7th most populous state in the country, we don’t need to, and should not, ignore any action of the government that exceeds the powers delegated under the Constitution. If we intend to set our country right, the focus must be on challenging its constant and historical abuse of power, divesting it of power that it has usurped over the years from the states and the people, pushing it back within the confines of the US Constitution, and re-establishing the essential balance of power between the States and federal government that is so critical for the preservation of liberty.

I hope other states will consider re-asserting their sovereignty and adopting Nullification bills. As US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 2012 Healthcare opinion, NFIB v. Sebelius: “The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.”

RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT & ENCOURAGE NULLIFICATION BILLS

PURPOSE:

This Resolution is introduced out of respect and in deep affection to the state of North Carolina, which holds a distinguished place in American history for being a leading force for freedom and liberty and the ideals upon which the independent united States were established.

The Declaration of Dependence set forth the ideals upon which our newly-free and independent States were established and upon which our newly-free and independent nation came into existence.  It reads, in paragraph two:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…..   “

This Resolution is intended to put checks in place, in the rightful depository, which is the State government, in order to make sure the federal government doesn’t abridge the rights of the individual and to help prevent it from “becoming destructive” of its ends so that the People will not feel the need to alter or abolish it. North Carolina, and indeed every other state, should always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the State governments.

Finally, this Resolution intends to re-affirm North Carolina’s commitment to freedom and liberty, as envisioned at our Founding.

RESOLUTION:

Whereas,  the Union was established by a social compact, which is a specific type of agreement (or contract) established by people in deciding their form of government;

Whereas, as such, a social compact has rights. responsibilities, benefits, obligations, and remedies just like any other contract;

And whereas, as such, a social compact, like any other agreement or contract, retains the meaning and intent at the time it was entered into – until such time it is legally amended; in other words, a social compact, like any other agreement or contract, is interpreted according to the plain meaning and understanding of its terms and provisions at the time it was entered into, as well as the intent of those words and provisions and the intent of the compact in general);

And whereas, a compact, like any other agreement or contract, is never considered a “living, breathing document” such that its terms and provisions can be altered, broadened, manipulated, ignored, or given new meaning with successive generations by a judge or a court, or even by one of the parties to that agreement/contract;

Whereas, the social compact that created the Union (the united States, later the United States) was the US Constitution; the US Constitution was, and is, a compact between and among the states, on behalf of its People, creating a general government to provide for the common defense and a regular and free trade zone among the states, with limitations on its powers that are defined, consistent, and predictable, for the free exercise of individual freedoms (which is the definition of liberty). The general government created by the compact is not a party to the compact but a “creature.”  As such, and aside from the federal courts’ duty to offer an “opinion” to the other branches on the constitutionality of bills, the States, as parties to the compact, have an equal right to judge for themselves the administration or maladministration of the government’s delegated powers or its assumption of powers not specifically delegated and thus usurped;

Whereas, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Butler, established the proper inquiry to be made in interpreting the powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution: “The question is not what power the Federal Government ought to have but what powers in fact have been given by the people.”  [United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 63 (1936)];

Whereas, a constitution is the act of a people constituting a government and assigning it delineated authority to govern; a government without a constitution is power without a right, and a government that enacts legislation without express authority to do has enacted a nullity, having no legal force or effect on the people;

Whereas, Chief Justice John Marshall, in writing the opinion for the Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia, acknowledged: “The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will.”  [Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheaton) 264 (1821)];

Whereas, the Constitution is an exercise of Individual Sovereignty; it is People’s Law; it is an instrument by the People and for the People, to restrain the government and especially to restrain the government as it touches on the lives of the People and their Property;

Whereas, the purpose of a written constitution is to bind the several branches of government by boundaries, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities [Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782];

Whereas, every act of the federal government that exceeds the power and authority granted to it is immediately null and void, a nullity, and unenforceable (this includes an act of Congress, an executive order, rules and regulations promulgated by a regulatory agency, a federal policy, and even a court opinion);

And whereas, any federal law, policy, executive order, action, or federal court opinion that exceeds any power delegated to the branches of the federal government by the US Constitution is an abuse of power and an act of government tyranny;

And whereas,  a federal law, policy, executive order, court opinion, etc without a foundation in legal authority is unconstitutional and therefore, null and void and unenforceable;

Whereas, Thomas Paine articulated this foundational legal doctrine in his pamphlet “Constitutions, Governments, and Charters (1805) when he wrote:  “A constitution defines and limits the powers of the government it creates. It therefore follows, as a natural and also a logical result, that the governmental exercise of any power not authorized by the constitution is an assumed power, and therefore illegal”;

And whereas, Alexander Hamilton further articulated this doctrine in his essay, Federalist No. 78:  “Every 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 principal; 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”;

And whereas, as Chief Justice John Marshall reaffirmed the same in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803): “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 that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”  [Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)];

Whereas, the question becomes this: When the federal government oversteps its authority and assumes powers not expressly delegated to it, how is the usurpation to be addressed so that its unconstitutional law, policy, executive order, court opinion, etc is not enforced on We the People who are entitled to be protected by the Constitution? A constitution is, after all, only a piece of paper. It cannot enforce itself. Checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, a prominent feature of the Constitution, provide little guarantee of limited government, since these three federal branches can simply unite against the independence of the states and the reserved rights of the people;

Whereas, we know the federal government will never police itself or deny itself any power it believes it should have (heck, most representatives don’t know the Constitution) and we can’t trust the federal courts to address the abuse by an honest interpretation of the Constitution (That is precisely what Jefferson warned William Branch Giles was already happening in 1825: “It is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic.”);

Whereas, Thomas Woods, author of the book Nullification: The Rightful Remedy, wrote: “If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power”;

Whereas, according to our Founders and Framers of our Constitution, the states (state legislatures) are the proper parties to check the power of the federal government. Only the states are powerful enough (state sovereignty; dual sovereignty, Tenth Amendment) to prevent the federal government from holding a monopoly on Constitutional interpretation;

Whereas, the federal nature of our government system provides the most powerful of checks and balances on the tendency of the federal government to concentrate and expand its powers;

Whereas, by its very words and intention, the US Constitution represents a federal system whereby the sovereign powers of government are split between the States and the federal government. With respect to the express and limited responsibilities listed in the US Constitution, the federal government is sovereign and supreme, and in all other respects, the States and the People are sovereign.  This critical balance provides the foundation of the Constitution, is the most important of our Checks and Balances, and essential for the preservation and security of individual liberty;

Whereas, Alexander Hamilton made this point clearly in his essay Federalist No. 26:  “The State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if anything improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.”;

Whereas, Thomas Jefferson pointed out the same in a letter he penned in 1811: “The true barriers of our liberty are our State governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man, is that of which our Revolution and present government found us possessed.”  [Letter to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811];

Whereas, North Carolina’s own James Iredell, as a justice on the first Supreme Court, discussed federalism his opinion in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, (1793), which law schools teach is the first important reconsideration of the meaning of the federal system. Iredell noted: “Every state in the Union in every instance where its sovereignty has not been delegated to the United States, I consider to be as completely sovereign;…each state in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved.”   [Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1973)]

Whereas, even as recently as 2012, the Supreme Court acknowledged this important and critical relationship: in the Healthcare opinion, NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.” [NFIB vs. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)];

Whereas, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 2011, explained why federalism is so critical to maintaining the precious balance of power between the federal government and the States: “Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.” [US v. Bond, 564 U.S. 211  (2011)];

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment was added as a “further declaration” of the federal nature of the government and a “further restrictive clause” and ensure that the federal government would be limited to the objects expressly delegated to it. The Tenth Amendment reads: “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”;

Whereas, our Founders warned of the tendency of governments to become ambitious, to consolidate their powers, and in doing so, to burden the liberty rights of their citizens, and they advised and tasked the States to be eternally vigilante with respect to the actions of the federal government, to call out every abuse and infraction of its powers and demand redress, and to be eternally protective of their reserved sovereign powers;

Whereas, Thomas Jefferson, in addressing the first glaringly unconstitutional acts of the federal government (the Alien & Sedition Acts, most obviously the Sedition Act), drafted the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 to articulate the doctrine of NULLIFICATION as the proper remedy to address the usurpation. He wrote: “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 whensoever 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..”;

Whereas, James Madison, in a companion set of resolutions known as the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 articulated essentially the same: “That this Assembly 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 that 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.”;

Whereas, Jefferson and Madison, in those documents and in others and especially in subsequent ones, explained in clear terms that it is the States, as parties to the compact (US Constitution), who have the right and duty to check the federal government’s powers;

Whereas, Thomas Jefferson explained, in his Kentucky Resolves of 1799, why the States had the right to judge for themselves when the federal government assumes undelegated powers: “That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers.”;

Whereas, Jefferson then went on to explain in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1799 what action the States should take: “: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a NULLIFICATION, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy….”  [It was in this document that the word “nullification” entered our lexicon];

Whereas, Jefferson and Madison, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and in other documents and writings, explained that NULLIFICATION is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY to address federal over-reach, abuse, and acts of tyranny. Simply put, Nullification in the American sense, is the doctrine whereby the States, as parties to the compact (US Constitution), have the right and duty to notify the federal government of its abuse of powers, to publicly announce those acts as “unconstitutional,” and then to prevent them from being enforced;

Whereas, the state of North Carolina acceded into the union of States on November 21, 1789 by ratifying the Constitution, It entered the union as an independent and sovereign state;

Whereas, with its accession, North Carolina did not enter into a position of unlimited subordination to the general government, but ceded only certain enumerated and defined powers, reserving to itself the residuary mass of rights to self-government (which was established by the limited and express delegation of powers to the federal government and then restated in the Tenth Amendment);

Whereas, in debating whether to ratify the Constitution, it first rejected it outright for its failure to include a Bill of Rights. Only when Rep. James Madison introduced a Bill of Rights to the first US Congress on June 8, 1789 and then said Congress adopted those amendments on September 25, 1789 did North Carolina finally agree to ratify the Constitution and join the union;

Whereas, a Bill of Rights was incorporated as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, with amendments one thru eight (1-8) recognizing certain liberty rights that the federal government would be bound to respect and would not be permitted to regulate (ie, to deny, abridge, burden, or chill), amendment nine recognizing that the People have other liberty rights not specifically articulated, and amendment ten re-affirming the federal nature of the government system and re-affirming that the federal government is one of limited and express powers while the States retain all others (the “reserved powers”);

Whereas, the Preamble to the US Bill of Rights explains the great importance of our first ten amendments. It states: “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Whereas, the “beneficent ends” included in the Preamble refer to the intention of the States to respect their sovereignty and to preserve Liberty, the very thing they fought the Revolution for;

Whereas, time has shown that the limited language of the Constitution, and even the “further declaratory and restrictive clauses,” have failed to achieve their specified intent, which is the constraint of the federal government;

Whereas, since the ratification of the US Constitution, the federal government has been permitted to hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation; the federal courts have happily done their part to re-interpret that document and to enlarge the powers to the federal government. Since the ratification of the US Constitution, the language and intent of its various articles, sections, and clauses have been incrementally and systematically misinterpreted, reinterpreted, misconstrued, mal-applied and or simply ignored through federal executive, legislative, and judicial usurpative action (resulting in a transformation that should have been legally accomplished according to the amendment process of Article V);

Whereas, the result has been the transformation of the government in DC into one much different than what was created by the States (the parties to the compact which was the US Constitution), and one that no longer serves the States as it was intended;

Whereas, the federal government, through its consolidation of power, instrumentalities, and monopoly over the federal courts, has increasingly entrenched upon the essential balance of sovereign power among itself, the States, and the People, to the great disservice of the latter two.  The balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and it is time to restore that balance. The result has been the usurpation of sovereign power from the States and the People, including the People of North Carolina, and that usurpation has become palpable.

THEREFORE, let it be RESOLVED that North Carolina recognizes what is at stake (with respect to the enjoyment of the individual liberty that our founding generation fought and died for) when the federal government is unable or unwilling to abide by the limits of power as imposed by the Constitution and will accept its rightful role in resisting federal over-reach and unlawful usurpation and in restoring said government back to its constitutional limits.  North Carolina takes the warning given by Samuel Adams very seriously: “Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. – Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom. It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.”

And it FURTHER be RESOLVED that in recognition of the rights and duties imputed on the States under the compact known as the US Constitution, in recognition of its right and duty to re-establish the rightful balance of power between itself and the federal government under the Tenth Amendment, in recognition of its right and duty to secure and defend the liberties of its people, the state of North Carolina asserts its right and duty to review each action of the federal government for over-reach and abuse and to determine whether said action is unconstitutional; and if said action is indeed determined to be unconstitutional and abusive of the US Constitution, North Carolina reserves its right of Nullification – to declare said action “null and void” and to ensure, in any and every way possible, that said federal action is not enforced upon the people of the state;

And it FURTHER be RESOLVED that the North Carolina Legislature will enact Nullification bills as needed to address federal over-reach and to protect its people from being subjected to them.