The Constitution Study

In this video I'll introduce you to The Constitution Scholars and give you a tour of the website. https://constitutionscholars.com

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws that abridge your right to petition the government for a redress of grievance. Yet not only has Congress ignore that restriction on their actions, but the federal courts have piled on. Today, I will look at what the right to petition means, how that has been violated, and what the American people can do about it.

With the recent passing of legislation in both Wisconsin and Nebraska, the call for a Convention of States is once again in the news, which has brought up a lot of comments and more than a few questions. So what is this Convention of States? What can happen if one is called? And most important, is it constitutional? Let's take a dive into the Convention of States, and see if we can answer these questions.

By now, you've probably heard of Jen Psaki's response to a question about Texas standing up to Biden's threatened vaccine mandate. She stated that federal law trumps state law. I guess it's true that the best lie should contain a bit of truth. Today, let's answer the question of whether federal law always trumps state law. Let's do so by looking at the original documents, so we can answer this question not only when it comes to vaccine mandates, but all of the acts coming out of Washington, D.C.

I talk quite a bit about the limitations of the federal government and the need for the states to reassert the power they have to control their creation. The number of federal agencies that do not legally exist, the fact the the supreme court does not issue rulings but offers opinions, and we can’t forget about the fact that the states created the federal government, not the other way around. So you can probably imagine my elation to find my legislation proposed in my adopted home state that codifies the state doing exactly what I said all of the states need to do, regain control of their creation in Washington, D.C. So let’s take a look at this legislation, see what lessons we can learn from it, and maybe push our representatives in other states to join in this march toward liberty.

I have heard a lot of talk lately about the institution of the Insurrection Act and martial law. In an effort to keep us focused on facts, I thought it would be a good idea to review the Insurrection Act, see what powers are legally delegated to the United States, and hopefully dispel some rumors you might have heard.

Many of you may be wondering what medical ethics has to do with the Constitution. Many who've been following what's been going on with the COVID-19 "vaccine" and related mandates have asked me about the Nuremberg Codes. While this set of medical ethics is not law in the United States, it does support the rights protected by the Constitution. Understanding this code, and how the Constitution protects your rights is paramount if liberty and freedom are to survive the attack they are under by enemies both governmental and societal.

Over the past few weeks I’ve been asked several questions about the “Sovereign Citizen” movement. What is a “sovereign citizen” or a “national citizen”? What do those in the “sovereign citizen” movement believe, what is their belief based on, and does the evidence support their assumptions? What are the consequences of following the recommendations from the movement? I thought it was time to not only dive into the facts of this movement, but to bring my findings to everyone here at The Constitution Study.

The gun grabbers in Congress are at it again. Attempts to disarm the American people have only been moderately successful over the past few years. So a bill was recently introduced in the House of Representatives entitled “Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024”. This bill wants to make it a crime for private citizens to work together to defend their rights. If this bill were to become law some day, even training together could not only get you fined, but placed in jail, possibly for life. Have these members of Congress forgotten that our war of independence was started by an attempt by the British governor of Massachusetts' attempt to disarm the people? That the the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought by private citizens who formed a militia? Or could it be that they just don’t care about our rights and the Constitution, and are just looking for another way to subjugate the American people?

U.S. Representative Tim Burchett has introduced a bill to limit the number of terms members of Congress can serve. I've talked before about term limits, but this seems to be a good opportunity to look at the details both to the legislation and the idea of term-limits.

- How does America choose its Chief Executive? - What role do the states play in electing the President?​ - Why do we have an Electoral College? - What about the National Popular Vote? - Why do we have two major political parties? If you want answers to these questions, join me for this free online event. https://constitutionstudy.com/election

You've probably heard about the "ruling" from a U.S. District Court Judge in Florida that "struck down" the CDC's mask mandate on public transportation. There has been plenty of discussion about what this means, how people have reacted, and the fact that the Biden administration has appealed this decision. What has been lost in most of the conversation is that the judge did not find the rule unconstitutional. What does this mean for the American people?

As April 15th approaches, and people spend valuable time and money on filing their income tax return. While plenty of people grouse and complain about paying income taxes, most don’t realize that the cause of their pain is the actions of the states back in 1913. When the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment they did more than just help the feds collect income taxes, they fundamentally changed the republic for the worse.

I've spoken repeatedly about the unconstitutionality of most mask mandates. Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to review two cases where people were punished for attending school board meetings while refusing to wear masks. Sadly, the cases, as described in the Circuit Court opinion, seem poorly founded, thus leading to decisions against the plaintiffs. I think a closer look will not only show the flaws in the case, but help others build better ones in the future. Please leave your questions and comments below, and don't forget to subscribe. Find out more at http://constitutionstudy.com

Lets give thanks for what we do have

You bring the questions, I'll bring the answers.

When can you sue the government? What started out as an erroneous credit report filing has turned into the heart of the question brought before the Supreme Court in the case Department Of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service V. Kirtz (USDA v. Kirtz). However, what the court found, and how it got there, points to a serious flaw in the constitutional education of lawyers and judges throughout this nation. Please leave your questions and comments below, and don't forget to subscribe. Find out more at http://constitutionstudy.com

When a government agent stands at your door asking to come in, do you know what your rights are? What would you do if that agent tries to enter your house illegally? If that day comes, the difference between liberty and incarceration may well depend on how well you know your rights and how prepared you are to assert and defend them.

Most of us have heard of the case where the Supreme Court placed limits of freedom of speech. However most people don't know the name of the case and frequently misquote it. A recent case out of Kansas once again brings into question the government's ability to criminalize certain types of speech. From the Schneck case in 1919 to the Hernandez-Calvillo case in 2022, when the government tries to make speech it doesn't like criminal, We the People must stand up to the tyranny.

Most of us are aware of Double Jeopardy, the right to not be tried for the same crime twice. But the courts have adopted a "dual sovereign" doctrine to get around this pesky little problem. Two Supreme Court cases out of Oklahoma show the problems with the court making up the rules as they go along, and how this concept of dual sovereignty violate both your rights and the Constitution of the United States.

A couple of weeks ago someone claiming to be my “#1 Fan”, at least that’s the name they used, asked an interesting question. “Any chance you could make a YouTube video going through each major executive federal agency or department and discuss which is actually Constitutional under Article 1 Section 8?” That’s a good question, so there’s not only a very good chance I will write the article, but here it is.

The long awaited day is finally, almost, here. However I doubt the Presidential decision will be made on that day. But is that the only thing we should be focused on?

In one of the many cases against Donald Trump, his attorney’s are claiming that he cannot be criminally charged for an act he performed in his official capacity as President. Why? Because of something called Presidential Immunity. Is there such a thing as Presidential immunity? If so, where is it stated in the Constitution? Or is the idea Presidential immunity just the latest attempt to turn the President of the United States into a king? Please leave your questions and comments below, and don't forget to subscribe. Find out more at http://constitutionstudy.com

You bring your questions, I’ll bring the answers.

One concept that I often see people express is that the United States is now a private corporation. Those who make these claims often cite The District of Columbia Act of 1871 as proof. This "fact" is then used to support various positions or explain why or how certain acts of government take place. So let's look at The District of Columbia Act of 1871 and the Constitution of the United States to see for ourselves if we are no longer citizens of a union, but subjects of a corporation.