Archives

Tona Monroe to speak at Bill of Rights Banquet on December 18th

Recipient of last year’s Eagle Award, then Blount County Commissioner Tona Monroe, will be the speaker at the 4th annual Truth Radio Bill of Rights Banquet on Tuesday December 18th.  The topic of the speech will be Proof of Authority and the Proper Role of Government: The Foundation of a Constitutional Republic.

A dinner will be held at 7 PM at RJ’s Courtyard located at 3749 Airport Hwy, Louisville, Tennessee 37777.  Book your meal by calling WBCR at 984-1470. 

2017 Bill of Rights Banquet
Eagle Award Recipients Tona Monroe, Jamie Daly, Karen Miller and Scott Williams 

Can’t wait to see how Senator Doug Overbey votes on this one

Apparently several of the Tennessee House Democrats don’t think any international authority should infringe on the gun rights of Tennesseans.  The Tennessee House voted 88-2 to pass legislation sponsored by a Democrat that will prohibit state and local government employees from enforcing international laws and treaties that restrict gun rights protected by the Constitution of Tennessee.   It will be interesting to see how Republican Senator Doug Overbey votes on this one, since he infringes on the gun rights of law abiding Tennessee citizens.

Idaho House Concurs with Senate: Returns to Constitutional Carry

2nd-amendment-1-e1410974639219

photo: TarheelTeaParty.org

by Horatio Bunce

via Breitbart:

On March 18 the Idaho House concurred with the Senate by passing legislation that abolishes the requirement for a permit to carry a concealed handgun in the state.

The legislation–Senate Bill 1389–now goes to Governor Butch Otter’s (R) desk…….

…The bill abolishes the permit requirement for Idahoans 21-years and older who want to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense. Carrying a handgun openly in Idaho is already legal, and SB 1389 ensures that people carrying guns will not suddenly be criminalized if their jacket, sweat shirt, or other article of clothing covers their gun….

If Governor Otter signs the bill, Idaho will join Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia, as states in which the Second Amendment is your concealed carry permit.

Of course, the Constitution does not grant any rights. Rights are inalienable. Constitutions can only acknowledge them and claim to protect them.

And guess what the fiscal note was in Idaho for the state to mind their own business and stop infringing on the innocent, law-abiding people?   ZERO!

How’s that Tennessee Republican Super-Majority working out for you?

Maybe one day the Republicans will make Tennessee as “conservative” as the home of Bernie Sanders instead of ignoring the U.S. Constitution and violating federal law:

18 U.S.C. § 242 : US Code – Section 242: Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Doug Overbey votes with Democrats and the Police for Profit Class against Constitution

Sen. Doug Overbey with Single Digit Jeb, Common Core promoter - photo submitted to Daily Times

Sen. Doug Overbey with Single Digit Jeb, Common Core promoter – photo submitted to Daily Times

by Horatio Bunce

Sen. Mark Green introduced a “Constitutional Carry” bill (SB1483) last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  This was one of many issues various Republicans promised to address if their party ever gained the majority in the state legislature. Years of Republican majorities later and now with a veto-proof super-majority, the only progress made is you can now drive with your legally purchased arms in your vehicle without a special tax paid to the state. However, you cannot bear your legally purchased arms outside of your home or your personal vehicle without paying a perpetual tax to the state to exercise your “right” to keep and bear arms, pay an exorbitant fee for an additional criminal background check and 8 hours of instruction by the THP carry permit monopoly and submit to fingerprinting – just like an arrested criminal. The original bill was simple: remove the currently unconstitutional infringements on the legal possession and bearing of arms by non-felons that are imposed by the state in the form of perpetual taxation for the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right. The ability to pay a perpetual tax to obtain an unconstitutional “carry permit” for reciprocal use in other states would remain if you so choose.  A criminal background check (background tax and sales tax paid by the buyer) would still be required to purchase any new firearms.

Sen. Green had already acquiesced to amend the bill into “Less Than Constitutional Carry” by adding a requirement for the same mandatory 8 hours of training, currently controlled by the state Police For Profit class, that is required to get your unconstitutional “carry permit” (a.k.a. receipt of tax paid to exercise your “right”) in Tennessee. This, despite the fact that the same department currently is willing to issue reciprocity permits to visiting Alabama residents – where no training at all is required.

This amendment to the bill did two things: 1) It removed any argument by the Anti-Constitutionalists that there was no “safety training” of those bearing arms. Anyone carrying open or concealed would have to produce their state government-approved training certificate upon demand by the Police For Profit class. Again, that returns actually bearing arms to a state-sanctioned privilege controlled by the Police For Profit Class, not a right. However, they would receive the exact same 8 hours of training currently imposed on those obtaining the unconstitutional “carry permit”.  2) It maintained the Police For Profit class revenue source for all that mandatory training, although Sen. Green did dare to add that the training could be provided by the U.S. military. The one revenue stream dislodged would be the exorbitant $72 the Police For Profit class charges for a SECOND background check as they fingerprint you like a criminal for showing up to pay your 2nd Amendment Tax. Remember, that first background check only cost $10 when you purchased the weapon.

With over a half million Tennesseans already forfeiting their 2nd Amendment right to pay $150 every 7 years for the privilege of bearing arms in Tennessee, you can see the Police For Profit Class stands to lose a lot. You do the math on the revenue stream at stake.

You really should take the time to watch the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing of this bill.

Note the timidity of judge-selector Brian Kelsey as he “reluctantly” seconds the motion to even hear the already-neutered bill. Hear the “legal opinion” that it is against Tennessee law to be in possession of a loaded weapon without the Police For Profit Class’ explicit permission – but unloaded is ok.  Listen to the arguments made by the Anti-Constitutionalists and the Police For Profit head revenue agent Tracy Trott as they rationalize that while they know the status quo infringements are indeed unconstitutional (and therefore illegal as any real-smart attorney should know), in their opinion, they are not “unreasonable” unconstitutional demands.  Trott is all about maintaining “control” of the revenue, and claiming they provide necessary “constitutional training” regarding use of deadly force to the permit holder.  Apparently, Trott was daydreaming about his next highway robbery asset forfeiture stop of “trucky-trailers” when Sen. Green explained the amendment to the bill required the exact same 8 hours of training they are already providing – except we would not continue to fleece our innocent, law-abiding, already-passed-a-background check neighbors perpetually in order to exercise their constitutionally-protected right.  Like Robot Rubio, head revenue agent Trott can only repeat the same couple of irrelevant lines over and over. The Anti-Constitutionalists have no response to the fact that Tennessee grants reciprocity to Alabama concealed carry visitors – who are not required to have any sort of training by their state (just pay us their money for the privilege of walking into Tennessee). Particularly, Senator Kerry Roberts had the courage to openly argue for your constitutionally-protected rights in support of Green’s bill and made very reasonable points exposing the hypocrisy of our current unconstitutional statutes.

End result: In the Republican-stacked committee (7-2), alleged Republicans Doug Overbey and John Stevens sided with the Democrats and the Police For Profit Class against the law-abiding citizens and the US Constitution. Republican Todd Gardenhire abstained, apparently believing restoring constitutionally-protected rights is a “bad bill”. Bill Fails to pass committee 4-4-1.

Yeas : Mike Bell, Janice Bowling, Brian Kelsey, Kerry Roberts

Nays : Doug Overbey, John Stevens, Sarah Kyle, Lee Harris

Present Not Voting : Todd Gardenhire

The licensing effect

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/how-salad-can-make-us-fat.html

This article refers to the licensing effect in the last paragraph saying:

“But the only foolproof way to defeat the licensing effect is to hold yourself to a higher standard when you’re making health decisions. Stick to the well-proven basics and tune out the noise of the commercial health-promotion industry, whose ever-optimistic mantra is “It might help … and it can’t hurt.” That’s a nice thought, but it’s almost always an illusion.”

Wonder what driving would be like without government issued drivers licenses (for the ‘privilege’ of course to use the roads that we pay for) that does so much to (not) keep us safe on the roads.  What about the carry permit, or any other government issued license?  Do they give us a false sense of security?

USA cops kill at higher rate than rest of “free” and the not so free world

America’s out-of-control cop kill rate

“We now know that police killed 1,100 Americans in 2014 and 476 Americans in the first five months of 2015. Given that America has roughly 765,000 sworn police officers, that means the police-against-citizen kill rate is more than 145 per 100,000.

Let us put that into perspective. In most countries in Europe the national homicide rate is 1 per 100,000, so that means American police kill at 145 times the rate of the average European citizen. The two most violent countries in the world are Venezuela and Honduras with national homicide rates of 54 and 90 per 100,000. The U.S. government issues travel warnings stating: “The Department of State continues to warn U.S. citizens that the level of crime and violence in Honduras remains critically high” and “violent crime in Venezuela is pervasive.” If you are not comfortable vacationing in those countries, it is little wonder why so many Americans are uncomfortable with police who kill at more than 1.5 and 2.5 times the homicide rates of the two most violent countries.”

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/edward-peter-stringham-out-of-control-kill-rate-article-1.2244132

Listen to an interview on the subject here: http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-426-the-shocking-kill-rate-of-american-police/

USA ranks 20th on The Human Freedom Index

While we enjoy some personal freedom, there is a lot of room for improvement.

http://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2015.pdf

Not everything on this website is written by me

There are some in the community who think that everything on this website is written by me (Tona Monroe).  That is not the case.  This site was never intended to be a website solely with material written by me.  I own domains with my name and could just as easily write the material there.

There are some in the community who think that I agree with everything written on this website.  That is not the case either.  My intention in creating this website was never to have complete and total agreement with every word posted here.

The litmus test for content on this website was never complete and total agreement with my views and is not the case now.  My goals are to promote freedom and transparency in government.  Those are the reasons why I started this website and why I continue publishing on this website.  Those are also the reasons that I ran for office and what I hope to achieve while in office.

The content here is intended to be thought provoking while promoting freedom and openness in government.  Everything that is posted here should no more be viewed as my opinions than letters to the editors are viewed as being the opinions of the editors at newspapers.

As I’ve said many times before and will continue saying, let freedom ring!

Seven Reasons to Vote for the Libertarian Party

From Reason:

1. The Libertarian Party supports all of your freedoms, all of the time
2. The Libertarian Party is consistent and principled
3. Voting for old party politicians tells them that you want to keep government big
4. Voting Libertarian is the only clear message you can send
5. Voting Libertarian forces the old parties to take the libertarian positions
6. Because the old parties don’t want you to
7. Voting Libertarian helps your favorite “libertarian-leaning old party politician


For great explanations to each of these reasons, click the link above or here.

 

Overbey votes against Guns in Parks Bill

Smug Overbite (Senator Doug Overbey) wants criminals to have the advantage in parks, voting against Campfield’s bill.  Of course, this is still with the get your permission slip from the State to do what you naturally have the God-given right to do.  So much for the letter that he sent about his support of the 2nd amendment for the gun rally held in Blount County last year.

When will the people of Blount County wake up?  The people they have put in office are an embarrassment.  Not one single office holder is a Democrat or an Independent, excepting non-partisan races.  All the good ole boys are Republicans who give lip service platitudes.  Will the people of Blount County ever wise up to this?  Or will we get more of the same?

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/BillVotesArchive.aspx?ChamberVoting=S&BillNumber=SB1496&ga=108

http://www.thedailytimes.com/Local_News/story/Bear-necessities-Residents-picket-for-Second-Amendment-id-032982

Pentagon arming US police with MRAP combat vehicles

If cities are going to have military vehicles, then the ban on fully automatic weapons should be lifted.  If the streets are going to look like war has broken out, then US citizenry should be armed for battle.  No permit necessary.  Fat chance the 16% increased spending Tennessee Republicans will go for it.  Get your permission slip and the overlords will let you have a .22, but pay no attention to the weapons and supplies of war that cops are using to line our streets.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzIyPilPsCc

Published on Jan 19, 2014 
Through a 1033 program, the US military is selling cheaply or giving away for free MRAP vehicles to small, local police stations across the country. MRAP, which stands for Mine-Resistance Ambush Protected, are heavy-duty war machines, which might seem excessive for small-town police stations. The Resident (aka Lori Harfenist) discusses.

What’s wrong with Americans for putting up with the police state?

This article in entitled, What’s Wrong with Police in Iceland?  It should be called what’s wrong with Americans for putting up with a murderous police state.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2013/12/whats-wrong-with-police-in-iceland.html

Here in Blount County, I’ve read about cops shooting at least a couple of individuals in situations where the cops faced no danger.  Immediately the Sheriff’s Dept. and local rag go into defense of murder and spin it.  It wasn’t long ago that we were fed the story of Sheriff Be-Wrong (Berrong) saving us from the Grainger County Coffee Monster.

Recently there was a front page story about a cop shooting a dog, making it sound like it was a good thing simply because the dog was barking and moving toward the officer, while a man who shot a lady’s dog is going to face trial.  Both were wrong, but The Daily Slime acted like the officer was just doing his job.  Murder is ok, so long as a cop is doing it.  Several of the Commissioners want to put more of these murderers on the streets to harass us even more, using “free” money from the feds.

Cops are unconstitutional and this country didn’t have them for the first half century of it’s existence.  For your reference, Roger Roots law review article, Are Cops Constitutional.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Let freedom ring!

Constitutional “Proper”, “Plenary”, and Preamble

2013/11/12

Proper”, “Plenary”, and Preamble

It was not until NFIB v. Sibelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566 (2012), that the Supreme Court began to address the meaning of “proper” in the Necessary and Proper Clause, on which most of the powers of government have been erected since the breakthrough case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), in which CJ John Marshall interpreted “necessary” to mean “convenient”, and said nothing about “proper”. It and Sibelius also did not address the meaning of “carrying into execution”, discussed elsewhere (see links at the end).

Ilya Somin has an article on this, The Individual Mandate and the Proper Meaning of “Proper” at SSRN. He explains that five of the justices agreed that “proper” does not allow “plenary” (unlimited) power, but they did not offer clear guidance on where the boundaries are.

CJ Marshall also introduced the term “plenary” into Supreme Court jurisprudence in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), in which he found that delegations of power were “plenary” within their sphere (subject matter). Ever since government lawyers have been building power on that opinion.

It requires only a little research into the historical background of legal delegation of power, and usage of the term “plenary”, to find that no delegations of constitutional power can ever be literally unlimited, that is, “plenary”. There is always an implicit constraint that a power only be exercised for a legitimate public purpose, and that is what the Framers meant by “proper”, not just for incidental “necessary and proper” powers, but all powers.

So where can we find authoritative guidance for what is proper? We can go back to Edward Coke, William Blackstone, and other legal authorities on whom the Founders relied, but we can also find a large part of it in the Constitution itself, indeed at the very beginning of it, the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now the conventional view that that the Preamble adds no real content to the Constitution. It is merely what lawyers call “aspirational”. It delegates no powers, defines no rights or duties, creates no structures or procedures. But it is not without constitutional meaning, because it defines six constraints on what are legitimate exercises of power, and therefore on delegations of power. Those are not the only constraints, but it is a good start.

Let us consider some delegations of power in the Constitution, and consider what it would mean if the delegations were “plenary”:

Art. I Sec. 4 Cl. 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

If the pre-emptive power of Congress over the time, place, and manner of congressional elections (except the place of senatorial elections) were plenary, they could require the elections be held within a 1-second timeframe, at a polling place on the moon, while standing on one’s head. Ridiculous? Of course. The power may only properly be exercised to make elections more accurate, convenient, and representative. That is an implied restriction on the delegation, which is not made explicit in the Preamble, but may be expressed as being for a “legitimate public purpose”.

Or consider this:

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. “The Congress shall have power … To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

If that congressional power were plenary, it would seem to allow Congress to forbid militia training and assembly or action. But that would be in conflict with the preamble of the Second Amendment:

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.

Which clearly implies the intent that militia be kept in a high state of readiness. A proper exercise of the power would be to enhance the effectiveness of militia, not impair it. It may be regulated, but only in one direction.

Here is another that some lawyers have been arguing is plenary:

Art. IV Sec. 3 Cl. 2. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; …

They actually argue this clause confers plenary, unlimited, power to dispose of any property in any way Congress may choose, even to drain the treasury to give all public funds to themselves or their cronies (which seems to be what they are doing), or to give any or all of the land of the country to a foreign enemy to be used to attack us. That obviously can’t be correct. In fact the power is that of a fiduciary, with government officials acting as trustees of the trust defined by the Constitution, having the duty to manage public trust assets for the general benefit of the people as a whole, not for the special benefit of a part of the people.

We also see this indicated in

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

In this clause, “common defense and general welfare” are not distinct delegations of power, but restrictions on the purposes of taxing and spending, that they be for the general benefit of all and not for the special benefit of a few.

Improper exercises of power are also what give rise to complaints of “abuse of discretion”, which are in principle justiciable. If the powers of officials were plenary there could be no abuse of discretion.

Proposed amendment

No plenary powers
All powers delegated in this Constitution are constrained to be exercised only for a proper, or reasonable, rational, and legitimate, public purpose, as a fiduciary trust for the general benefit of all the people and not for the special benefit of any part of them, partially but not completely stated in the Preamble. No power is plenary or without limits, and no power may be extended to accomplish a purpose without amendment.

See also:

  1. Ratchet of rot
  2. Unnecessary and Improper — Analysis of Necessary and Proper Clause.
  3. The original meaning of “carrying into execution” — The restrictive phrase has never been properly adjudicated.
  4. Diagram of Necessary and Proper Clause

Source: http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2013/11/proper-plenary-and-preamble.html