Issues/Constitution

See other issues.

The federal and state governments now routinely violate the Constitution, and such violation is frequently upheld by the Supreme Court. Often this is a case of well-meaning individuals trying to do the right thing in the wrong way, but often it is more sinister. It is always dangerous, and the commonplace nature of these violations is a strong indication of how far we have already drifted into the territory of a tyranny.

We have long been interested in documenting the many ways in which the Constitution is being ignored, and this article is the beginning of such documentation. We've put together a fairly broad list (though we don't expect to ever consider it complete, unfortunately) and are working on going into detail about each item. At that point we'll probably start shopping around for feedback and more examples.

Some Notes on Interpreting the Constitution

In the Bill of Rights, reference is frequently made to "the people". The Constitution, as a kind of government contract with the people was initially framed as a social contract defining and limiting organization, powers, and responsibilities, for the federal government in relation to the states. The states, or countries, in the Americas, had existence and sovereignty before they agreed to a plan of unity and cooperation through federation. The Constitution laid out the terms of this federation, and defined a federal government. Hence, the Constitution was a contract between states, and defined the authority of the federal government in relation to these states. The states are seen to be comprised of people, and are not always treated distinctly. Hence, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects ..." is a fairly obvious reference to individuals, but also indicates that our organizations are likewise secure. Similarly, in the ninth amendment we read: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This does indicate that we, as individuals retain certain rights, but we remain free to exercise those rights via state organizations with which we may have a separate social contract (eg. constitution) established. Hence, the ninth amendment is a part of the foundation for what is referred to as "states' rights". State's rights, therefore referred to the right of states to enact regulation that the federal government could not, or, in other words, the right of the people of a state to define their own social contract, without fear of federal meddling. Since then, the Constitution has been amended on multiple occasions, in ways that limit what states may do, or delegate authority to the federal government that enters into this domain that had formerly been left to the states. However, despite this alteration of what rights were left to the people, the basic rule still stands that rights exist, and are retained by the people, even though they may not be mentioned in the constitution, and, per the 10th amendment, we have more explicitly that "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."

• Taxing and Spending clause
• General Welfare clause

Disregarding the Constitution

List of Abuses to Expand on

This list may contain esoteric terms. These are mostly stub headings which should eventually become their own subsections. with explanation where necessary

• War on the Jury
  • "How Juries Can Refuse to Convict People for Breaking an Unjust Law", Libertas Institute, 21 Jun 2016
• Gun Control and Gun Theft
  • Elizabeth Harrington, "There Are Now More Bureaucrats With Guns Than U.S. Marines", The Washington Free Beacon, 22 June 2016
• Income Tax Code which taxes on non-income basis.
• IRS discrimination
  • Wesley Bruer, "Court: IRS needs to prove it isn't targeting conservative groups", KSL, 8 Aug 2016
  • Stephen Dinan, "IRS denies tea party groups after long wait for decision on tax-exempt status", The Washington Times, 13 Nov 2016
• Abuse of Eminent Domain
• NSA Spying
  • Warrantless wiretapping
  • Tim Cushing, "Drug Dealer's Lawyers Want To Know How Yahoo Is Recovering Communications It Previously Said Were Unrecoverable", Tech Dirt, 25 Jul 2016
  • Lindsay Whitehurst, "Feds ask judge to toss case about 2002 Olympics snooping claim", KSL, 14 Jul 2016
  • Josh Gerstein, "Court troubled by surveillance excesses at FBI, NSA", Politico, 04/19/16 04:30 PM EDT
• Intimidation of the Press
  • In many cases this is accomplished through contempt of court holdings.
  • Josh Gerstein, "Judge: Glenn Beck must identify sources on Boston Marathon bombing", Politico, 9 Aug 2016
• Hate crime legislation.
  • See: McKenzie Romero, "Utah legislator wants mandatory death penalty when police are targeted, killed", KSL, 3 Nov 2016
  • See: Adam Cassandra, "LMU Reinstates Employee Accused of ‘Hate Crime’ for Defending Church Teaching", The Cardinal Newman Society, 21 Jul 2016
  • See: "Making attacks against police hate crimes goes too far", The Denver Post, 20 Jul 2016
  • See: Chriss W. Street, "Congress Moving to Make Cop-Killing a ‘Hate Crime’", Breitbart, 19 Jul 2016
  • See: Tod Perry, "Catcalling Is Now A Hate Crime In Nottinghamshire, England", GOOD, 18 Jul 2016
  • See: Andrew Stiles, "Punching a White Woman After Yelling ‘I Hate White People’ Not a Hate Crime, Judge Rules", HeatStreet, 6 Jul 2016
• Abusive fining
  • Abuses include severe (cruel and unusual) fines, denial of due process, entrapment, and quotas.
  • See: "Drivers who won red light camera suit want new ticket revenue to pay $1.8M award", Fox News, 21 Jul 2016
• Rendition, and human rights abuses at military detention centers.
• Abuse of Material Witness Statute
  • Emily E. Smith, "Oregon man commits no crime, but held in jail for 900 days", Oregon Live, 12 Mar 2015
• Obamacare
• Current Treatment of political parties
  • Registration and public institutionalization of political parties
  • Legislation telling political parties how they must pick their candidates.
    • Katie McKellar, "Count My Vote supporters, GOP split over SB54's impact on primaries", KSL, 29 Jun 2016
• The Draft
• FAA Regulation of drones and monopolization of state airspace.
  • See: "Dad, teen son ordered to disclose data on gun-firing, flame-throwing drones", Fox News, 19 Jul 2016
• Some incidents of police violence.
  • This is tricky, because it is hard to know all the pertinent fact of a case. Police put their lives on the line, and often need to employ violent means in order to protect us. However, it is clear that abuses occur and are often sanctioned, enabled, or covered up by cities, sherriffs, or even citizens. Police cannot be above the law.
  • See: "South Florida police shoot autistic man's caretaker as he lies in street", Fox News, 21 Jul 2016
• The Digital Millenium Copyright Act
  • See: Kyle Wiens, "We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Very Idea of Ownership", Wired, 21 Apr 2015
  • See: Mike Masnick, "Why The DMCA Is An Unconstitutional Restriction On Free Speech", Tech Dirt, 6 Apr 2010
• Suspension of Jury Trial Rights for So-Called Petty Crimes
  • Stephen A. Siegel, "Textualism on Trial: Article III’s Jury Trial Provision, the 'Petty Offense' Exception, and Other Departures from Clear Constitutional Text", Social Science Research Network, 28 Sep 2012
  • Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offense Exception and the Right to a Jury Trial", Fordham Law Review, 1979
  • Duncan v. Louisianna - Wikipedia
• Workplace harrassment legislation
  • Eugene Volokh, "Wearing ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ insignia could be punishable racial harassment", Washington Post, 3 Aug 2016
• Miscellaneous
  • "Army veteran arrested for hanging US flag upside down in protest", Fox News, 15 Aug 2016
  • John Yoo, "John Yoo: The ultra-secret Obama White House ignores our Constitution (again)", Fox News, 4 Oct 2016
  • Hudson Hongo, "Feds Claim They Can Enter a House and Demand Fingerprints to Unlock Everyone's Phones", Gizmodo, 16 Oct 2016
  • Utah/Ag Gag

Abortion

This is a violation of the 5th amendment, the 9th amendment, and the 10th amendment.

The 5th amendment mandates that "no person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This, of course, hinges on what one defines as a "person". Throughout history, there have been categories of people disenfranchised because they have been regarded as less than human, and we would hold that fetuses are people thus disenfranchised. They are alive, they are human, and they are regularly slaughtered without being provided any legal process at all for protection. Laws against abortion may be destroyed, but without a positive legal mandate to grant the authority to abort a foetus, due process is not being followed, and the Constitution is being violated. The federal government has no legitimate authority to enforce this breach of the Constitution.

Regulation of abortion, being something not forbidden to the states, and, in fact, being effectively mandated by the 5th amendment, is not something that the federal government had any authority to forbid. Infringing on this authority reserved to the people constitutes a violation of the 9th and 10th amendments.

See Also

• "Last charge dropped against anti-abortion duo behind Planned Parenthood videos", Fox News, 26 Jul 2016
• Daphne Chen, "Supreme Court abortion decision could affect Utah, experts say", KSL, 27 Jun 2016

Asset Forfeiture

As currently implemented, this is a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments.

Asset forfeiture or asset seizure is a form of confiscation of assets by the state. It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instruments of crime. (See: Wikipedia) The problem with the current implementation of asset forfeiture is that the government keeps the money and does not even have to charge individuals or organizations with a crime.

Under the 4th amendment, an authority to seize property is implicitly acknowledged. However, it is specifically indicated that seizures that are unreasonable are not allowed. In our government's execution of asset forfeiture law, reasonableness has not been in any way apparent. Even further, the 5th amendment goes further in stating that we cannot "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", and even further, that property taken for public use must be compensated.

In the case of asset forfeiture, in many cases, individuals and organizations have not been charged, and upon suing to regain funds, the government has resisted strongly and often paid back only a fraction of what was taken, if anything, after a costly legal battle. If the property was to serve as evidence of a crime, we should expect a criminal charge. Otherwise, indefinite holding (and absorption into government budgets) is clearly unconstitutional without any kind of equitable remittance.

See Also

• "Police seize $500K during traffic stop, no charges filed — but they keep the cash", Glenn, 31 Aug 2018
• Radley Balko, "Jeff Sessions on marijuana and civil asset forfeiture", The Washington Post, 19 Jan 2017
• Nick Sibilla, "Forcing Low-Income Owners to Pay to Challenge Civil Forfeiture Cases is Unconstitutional, Michigan Court Rules", Institute for Justice, 8 Aug 2016
• Cristina Corbin, "Oklahoma's use of card readers to freeze, seize funds comes under fire", FoxNew, 17 Jun 2016
• "States crack down on government cash grabs", Fox News, 11 June 2016
• Aaron Brilbeck, "OHP Uses New Device To Seize Money During Traffic Stops", News9, 7 Jun 2016
• Mike Maharrey, "Ohio House Committee Passes Bill to Curb “Policing for Profit” Via Asset Forfeiture; Close Federal Loophole", 10th Amendment Center, 23 May 2016
• Marissa Bodnar, "I-Team: Law enforcement agencies use 'asset forfeiture' to combat Maine's drug epidemic", WGME, 23 May 2016
• Margaret Dooley-Sammul, "ACLU Report: Asset Forfeiture Takes Wealth from Communities of Color", ACLU, 19 May 2016
• Mark J. Perry, "Now that assets seized by federal law enforcement agencies exceed burglaries, bipartisan bill aims to stop the abuse", American Enterprise Institute, 19 May 2016
• Tom Orr, "‘For the Record’: How the Government Can Seize Your Money Without Charging A Crime", The Blaze, 16 May 2016
• "86% of Utah voters oppose current civil asset forfeiture laws", Libertas Institute, 22 Mar 2016
• Connor Boyack,"Utah Law Enforcement Doubles Down on Forfeiture Misrepresentations", Libertas Institute, 13 Feb 2016
• Christopher Ingraham, "New report: In tough times, police start seizing a lot more stuff from people", The Washington Post, 10 November 2015
• "A Rebuttal to the Attorney General’s Office on Asset Forfeiture", Libertas Institute, 8 Jan 2014

Contempt of Court

In many cases, contempt of court can be used by judges to infringe upon the first, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, or 10th amendment rights.

1st and 5th Amendments
When we think of contempt of court, we often think of a defendant being jailed for telling off the judge, or a lawyer being jailed for exposing sealed evidence, constituting direct disruption of court proceeding, and showing contempt for the process of the court. Generally this sounds reasonable and necessary in order for any court to function properly. However, how do we feel about a journalist being jailed for refusing to divulge his sources, or a politician being jailed for refusing to exercise discretion the way the judge wants?

There have been many cases of reporters being jailed for refusing to turn over material or reveal sources. The first amendment grants special protections for the press, but it is worth noting that these protections are legislative in nature. Specifically, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The sixth amendment specifically grants that the courts can and should compel witnesses to serve on behalf of defendants, and further the 4th amendment does acknowledge an authority to issue warrants. Nevertheless, in none of the cases reviewed was testimony demanded in support of a defendant, nor were such reporters acting as accusers. Warrants allow for search and seizure, but such jailing was not made in response to interfering with any search and seizure. rather, the reporters are generally held in contempt for refusing to act as agents of the court in searching for evidence and turning it over. It is not at all clear that this is allowed.

The fifth amendment protects the right of individuals to not be forced to testify against themselves, but generally this is not the issue either. Reporters are being coerced into acting as agents of the state in procuring evidence and building a case against a defendant. This is reminiscent of the FBI's attempts to coerce Apple into hacking their own customer's hardware. This would seem, on the face of it, to be a violation of the 5th amendment's provision that the government cannot deprive us of our liberty without due process of law. Generally we would imagine that we need to be found guilty of a crime in order to be deprived of our liberty, or at least be charged with a crime. We will note that witnesses benefiting a defendant can be compelled to testify, and this is constitutionally mandated. This begs the question: Is there a difference? The answer, we think, is yes. The Constitution identifies the compelling of witnesses in favor of a defendant as the process of law, while nothing identifies the current compelling of witnesses in favor of the prosecution. Some process needs to be defined to allow it. However, the only body which has any legal ability to define such a process, has been prohibited from doing so by the first amendment. Judges can create procedural rules for their courts, but they cannot grant themselves authority they didn't already have.

Hence, we conclude that where legislation has been created to allow compelling journalists to divulge their sources in support of prosecution, it is a violation of the first amendment, and where such legislation has not been defined, it is a violation of the fifth amendment.

Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Amendments
If a contemner is held to have committed a crime, the right to a trial by jury is constitutionally required by the sixth amendment in order to determine guilt. Generally, it is held that if the contemner commits the crime in the presence of the judge, then he can be sentenced immediately because the judge saw the crime and it does not need to be proved to him. However, this glosses over the purpose of the jury system quite incompletely. One of the purposes of the jury system is to act as a check against potential abuse of the judge's power. Hence, while a judge may have seen the evidence and know the truth of the matter, he should still require the consent of a jury in order to hold him in contempt. Though, if such crimes are committed in the presence of a jury, and the contemner's lawyer, this might be resolved rather quickly. Indefinite or extended holding as punishment or coercion on presumption of criminal guilt, without assent from a jury, is unconstitutional.

In civil matters the constitution holds that the right to trial by jury must be guaranteed for matters exceeding $20, though it is hard to think how this must translate when the judge is not seeking financial relief, but rather compliance with an order or jail time. It would seem though, that jail can't get very far for $20, even assuming a minimum wage translation. (Though, if we assumed that $20 could run a month when the constitution was written, then contempt could really get some legs, but this is not how the seventh amendment is generally interpreted.) Generally, however, in civil contempt cases, such arguments are not brought to bear. It is, rather, held that because the contemner can get out of jail at any time by complying with the judge's orders, that his due process rights are not necessary. The affect is that a judge can order anything he likes and put people in jail for not doing what he says, regardless of their rights, his jurisdiction, or the authority of his office. Thus, while law suits for small sums may not cause major concerns regarding the potential of the judge to do harm, civil contempt, by way of comparison, is very dangerous indeed. People have languished in jail for years because the would not sacrifice their constitutional rights to a judge that didn't care about due process, or some other part of the bill of rights. Hence, the eighth amendment is violated as well. If we consider the case of Kim Davis, who refused to comply with the Supreme Court's violation of the ninth amendment in forcing all states to allow for same-sex marriages, then we can see how easily the ninth amendment is violated as well.

See Also

• Contempt of court - Wikipedia
• Critical Legal Readings of Walker v. Birmingham - Harvard
• David Ovalle, "He didn’t give police his iPhone pass code, so he got 180 days in jail", Miami Herald, 30 May 2017
• "Judge threatens to hold Bundy lawyer in contempt of court", KSL, 23 Sep 2016
• "Utah Judge Compels Suicidal Teenager to Attend Public School Despite Being Legally Homeschooled", Libertas Institute, 14 Jun 2016
• "Why are contempt of court jailings not considered violations of the Constitutional right to due process?" - Quora
  • It is interesting to note that none of the answers provided actually makes the case that this power has a constitutional basis. the idea that "the defendant owns the keys to their own cell" is simply a flowery way of saying that all you have to do is give up the right that the judge doesn't want you to exercise to get out. The examples, such as a reporter refusing to divulge sources, make this even more apparent. Why should a judge be allowed to ignore your due process rights in order to force you to give up your first amendment rights? This abuse was also apparent in the case of Kim Davis.
• "ANCILLARY POWERS OF FEDERAL COURTS: The Contempt Power", FindLaw

DUI Checkpoints

This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

Stopping a suspected drunk driver (eg. someone weaving dangerously through traffic) is one thing. Carpet bombing an entire street with police officers performing searches indiscriminately, without even a hint of cause, is unconstitutional.

See Also

• Sam Hananel, "HIGH COURT STRIKES LIMITS DRUNK DRIVING TEST LAWS", Associated Press, 23 Jun 2016
• Lily Dane, "Are Sobriety Checkpoints Really Unconstitutional?", Freedom Outpost, 3 Sep 2014

Fining of Businesses or Professionals for Exercising Moral Agency

This is a multi-part violation. The first amendment is violated on at least two accounts, the 5th, 8th amendments are also violated.

The first amendment protects the free exercise of religion, and also separately protects the freedom of speech. There is no right to make others cooperate with you in your speech, or exercise of religion. It is not an infringement of your liberty for a business to deny you service, no matter what the reason may be.

The forbidding of businesses from exercising their moral agency constitutes depriving them of their liberty without due process of law. (Due process of law is only invoked afterwards, to then justify taking property.) This is a violation of the 5th amendment. We will note that there are obviously times when restrictions on generic liberty are necessary in order to protect the life, liberty and property of others. Such is the case with laws requiring driving on a certain side of the road. However, religious and moral liberty is given special consideration, and laws punishing cake-makers for refusing to make a cake for a gay marriage do not serve to protect any such legitimate object, while effectively making all cake-makers into legal slaves. Indeed, since such laws apply to any business, then unless you are willing to resort to begging, stealing, or starvation, then you are effectively made a legal slave, who only gets to choose the vocation for his slavery (and then, usually, get the government's permission to pursue that vocation).

When a business is found to have violated a restriction on its moral agency, the fines that are imposed have frequently been found to be so large as to force the owner out of business. This seems cruel and unusual, and, indeed, excessive, violating the 8th amendment.

See Also

• Frank Camp, "A Lesson In Free-Market Economics: Gay Shop Owner Kicks Christians Out Of His Business Because Their Beliefs ‘Offend’ Him", Daily Wire, 8 Oct 2017
• Matt Agorist, "Christian Bed & Breakfast Fined $80K for Refusing Gay Marriage, Now Forced to Host Gay Weddings", The Free Thought Project, 7 Dec 2016
• Bradford Richardson, "Vermont doctors push back against assisted-suicide requirement", Washington Times, 21 Jul 2016
• Gale, "LDSSingles.com Forced to Serve LGBT Users", LDS.net, 8 jul 2016
• Todd Starnes, "Iowa: 'Some' churches must comply with transgender bathroom laws", Fox News, 5 Jul 2016
• "Judge blocks Mississippi religious objections law", Fox News, 1 Jul 2016
• Todd Starnes, "Democrats, LGBT activists’ sinister plan to crack down on Christian schools", Fox News, 23 June 2016
• Samuel Smith, "Christian Wedding-Venue Owners Fined 81K by Illinois Vow to Never Host Gay Weddings", Christian Post, 1 Apr 2016
• Todd Starnes, "Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians", Fox News, 3 July 3015
• Billy Hallowell, "Christian Chapel Owners Were Reportedly Threatened With Jail Time and Fines For Refusing to Marry Gays — and Now They’re Fighting Back", The Blaze, 20 Oct 2014

No-fly Lists

Section 8 of the Constitution grants to Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. However, that power is limited by the 5th amendment requirement that the federal government not deprive one of liberty without due process of law.

In the case of no-fly lists, we have a liberty which is being taken on very broad terms, in a secretive way. It is not easy to know how to get onto a No-fly List, and the only indication that one has gotten on to such a list is to attempt to fly, and then be rejected. (Even then you may not be told why.) This can have very serious consequences, interfering with one's ability to fulfill obligations, keep appointments, or complete travel plans with family. Once one has gotten onto a No-fly List, getting off is also no simple matter. Even worse, once someone with a similar name has gotten onto the No-fly List, or the related Selectee List, then that name becomes a discriminator, so that anyone with a similar name can be find themselves treated very much like they were actually on the list themselves.

We see one such example in former Senator Ted Kennedy, who, back in 2004, had some significant trouble traveling because his name was similar to the known alias of someone on a watch list (whether it was the No-fly List, or the Selectee list seems to be in doubt). Even being a U.S. Senator with direct access to high ranking officials, it took weeks for the matter to be resolved.

The manner in which one gets onto a no-fly list is uncertain, the manner for contesting an inclusion on the no-fly list is uncertain, and one is never informed that one has gotten onto a No-fly List. This is a very shady kind of due process, if we are to imagine that it is any kind of due process at all. Things get even more precarious when we start proposing that this list be used to also restrict gun ownership.

See Also

• Joe Perticone, "Five Ways an Innocent American Could End Up on Obama’s Secret Gun Control List", Independent Journal, 16 June 2016

TSA Airport Security Checkpoints

Here we have a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

We have gotten used to searches in similar contexts. When we go to a baseball game, we may have our bags searched. When we take the train, we may be arbitrarily stopped and required to present a ticket. There are many similar circumstances, and in each of these cases, there is rarely "probable cause" to believe that we have done anything criminal, or otherwise nefarious. (Though I take umbrage at seeing the government employed to do this policing for corporations, granting them, in some cases special privilege which violates equal protection, while they ignore the general policing which we citizens require of them. One particular incident when I was ignored when trying to report apparent human trafficking comes to mind.) In each of these circumstance, a doctrine (which I consider suspect) is employed by which we, by purchasing a ticket, have granted our consent to such searches. Effectively, we are purchasing a contract with the company wherein we pay money, consent to searches, and a host of other things (eg. refraining from taking photographs), and in return we are granted entry, access, or some other privilege. The searches are part of our contract with another person, or organization.

In the case of the TSA's airport security checkpoints, it is not the airlines or the airport which have required these searches from us. It is the government that has required these searches. The government has no incentive to avoid offending flyers, because we are not their customers. They impose this requirement uniformly, even if unconstitutionally, and have therefore established an effective monopoly, so that we have little choice but to let the government humiliate us however it pleases despite the fact that they have no probable cause to suspect us of criminal or nefarious activity. They can get no warrant to search me, but they search me all the same.

See Also

• Chris Gardner, "'Silence' Producer's Joke at Airport Security Leads to Vagina Patdown", The Hollywood Reporter, 13 Jan 2017
• Matt Novak, "TSA Agents Confiscate Huge Teddy Bear, Give Him Detailed Backstory About How He's Homeless and Hungry Now in Order to Remind Us That Everything Is Bad", Gizmodo, 15 Dec 2016
• Talia Tirella, Dan Mannarino, "‘The Moms’ co-host Denise Albert, who is battling cancer, says she felt ‘violated’ during TSA search", Pix 11, 6 Dec 2016
• Phil Helsel, "Seattle TSA Worker Arrested on Voyeurism Charge", NBC News, 20 Jul 2016
• Michael Harthorne, "Family Sues TSA After Teen Cancer Patient Assaulted", Newser, 2 Jul 2016
• Andrea Lucia, "Talk Of Moving TSA Checkpoints Outside", CBS DFW, 29 Jun 2016
• Evann Gastaldo, "Girl, 10, Gets 2-Minute TSA Patdown Over Juice Pouch", Newser, 6 Jan 2016

The War on Drugs

We personally don't like recreational drugs, and we don't think it wise or healthy to use them. We aren't against state efforts to control substances in general.

However, for the federal government, this is a different matter. The only authority that the Constitution grants to the federal government that has any bearing on the "War on Drugs" is the authority to regulate interstate commerce. However, possession, use, and sale laws (except, of course, as regards interstate sale or transportation) are not enacted or implemented based on any a legitimate authority of the federal government, and punishments are often cruel and unusual.

See Also

• http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/844.htm

External Resources

• Paul Bremmer, "DHS whistleblower: Why Obama is 'so adamant to protect Islam'", WND, 30 Jun 2016
• Leo Hohmann, "Idaho 'rape': Obama prosecutor 'silencing Americans with threats of arrest'", WND, 28 Jun 2016
• Mike Maharrey, "Judicial Supremacy: How Did this Far-Fetched Claim Originate?", Tenth Amendment Center, 7 Jul 2014
• Pierce Willians, "5 Ways Your Constitutional Rights Are Being Violated", News.Mic, 4 Jul 2013
• http://www.constitution.org/cs_abuse.htm
• http://www.alternet.org/story/148860/10_ways_to_outfox_cops_that_are_abusing_their_powers_to_trick_you
• http://bcsteaparty.com/2015/01/the-3-most-abused-clauses-in-the-constitution/
• https://www.aclu.org/top-ten-abuses-power-911
• Tom Jackman, "National sheriffs’ group, opposed to federal laws on guns and taxes, calls for defiance", The Washington Post, 28 April 2016