5 Good News!
What the President Has No Authority to Do;
and What We Have Authority to Do!

The President has no authority or obligation to administer an unconstitutional law. Executive Orders are exclusively for administering existing laws -- not for fulfilling his every whim, nor for expending any moneys not already appropriated by the Congress. Whether Congress has given the current occupant of the White House a blank check for his use of Air Force One, or they are just not paying attention -- either way, the situation is clearly out of hand. See Air Force One Use. Neither does he have authority to make war without declaration by Congress.

The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature. -- Thomas Jefferson

This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our interest can draw us into war. -- James Wilson, at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention

See The Constitution is Clear on Presidential War Powers by Thomas E. Woods. He is not king. In the words of the Founding Fathers, "We have no king but Jesus."

If you are concerned about "emergency powers" -- that pursuant to these supposed powers Congress may behave as a virtual Supreme Soviet and the President as a virtual dictator -- and that therefore the Republic is dead, patriotism is futile, and all is lost; then you need to read Don't Fall for the Bunkum of "Emergency Powers," an article in two parts by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. (See more about martial law below.)

International agreements are treaties, by definition. Those negotiated with Canada and Mexico are unconstitutional because treaties must have both the advice and the consent of the Senate — who were not even consulted. NAFTA, etc., are unconstitutional because of House of Representatives involvement.

He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;...--Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

Then restore our Republic, all at one time in one accord, standing on the Tenth Amendment, with at least seven Resolutions -- the First one declaring the Constitution, under God, to be the Supreme Law of the Land, the Second one taking back the Senate by declaring unconstitutional the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments. You will see the rest of the list in 7 We Can Do It!

The good news is that the States have the keys.

This is how We the People restore our Republic: Via our state elected officials, who must force the federal government to live within the confines of the Constitution. It’s called nullification. See Nullification: Smacking Down those Who Smack Down the Constitution by Publius Hulda. Also, So, You Say You Want Your Country Back? by J. B. Williams

Some think we should do it issue by issue by Congressional legislation and/or through the courts. They don't understand that the current Congress, especially the Senate, is part of the problem, and so are the courts. Either would be another case of jousting with windmills. See Dr. Vieira's new book, How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary


Constitutional amendments will be in order. But not for repealing the 16th and 17th, which are unconstitutional. How can we repeal what does not exist? And if we repealed it anyway, that act would confer on it, and all consequences, validity for the time before the repeal. All consequences would have to be challenged one by one in the courts.

(One exception to that rule could be that a new Congress could thwart the mischief of a lame duck Congress by immediately repealing it before it can go into effect and cause any consequences.)

But would new amendments now be heeded any more than is the Constitution? And would we be willing to trust Congress, in its current makeup, to propose an amendment? I would not!

Amendments must wait until we have restored our Constitution to supremacy. Later, new amendments can help us to keep it.

Our energy and focus now should be on preparation for the first step in the direction of restoring our Republic.

1) The Silver Bullet will free them from dependence upon the Federal Reserve which compromises State sovereignty.

2} Working together and learning from one another, they can come into one accord.

”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.” -- Second Amendment