Tag: tenth amendment

Michigan at a Crossroads – John Tatar for Governor

By John Keller | United States
John Tatar is a libertarian campaigning to be the next governor of Michigan.
Keller: Running for governor is no easy task. What inspired you to run for office and pursue a political career?

Tatar: I am tired of the Democrats and Republicans promising everything and delivering NOTHING!  Each “public functionary” has no clue about our Republic and has no clue about the US Constitution and the MI Constitution.  These “public functionaries” have no idea that their power to govern comes from the people who delegate power to them to rule.  If we don’t delegate it,  they do not that the authority to do it.  Yet their responsibilities to take care of the infrastructure has been seriously neglected,  They claim they have no money so they must raise taxes,  yet they have enough money to purchase a 17 million dollar building for 48 Million, and they get away with it.  The “public functionaries”  are over paid and under worked while the people they represent are over worked and under paid,  This REPUBLIC is upside down.  The Candidates that are presently running are ALL part of the SAME ilk.  I could go on and on about what is wrong, but complaining will not fix the problem RUNNING for governor will..

I have always been involved with politics, I have tried to correct some of the problems as a citizen but educating the masses is very difficult.

Keller: When entering politics, what drew you to the Libertarian Party over the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?
Tatar: The Libertarian party has not been compromised at this time.  If you haven”t been a delegate to either of the other two parties that is a true eye opener,  They are corrupt and compromised as the candidates who are running.  I was a delegate at one time to the Republican party, during the Ron Paul run for president.  When Ron Paul met the criteria for speaking at the convention, that is getting 3 states that supported him, then he would get a chance to speak at the Republican Convention.  Well, at the Republican Convention, in front of everyone that was watching on TV saw the chairman of the republicans change the rules to 10 states.  What a criminal behavior! 
Keller: In Michigan’s history, since 1842, there has been 17 democratic and 28 republican governors – no third party governors. Why is the time for a libertarian governor now
Tatar: I believe that many of the Citizens who are involved with the electoral process is fed up with the present political graft and corruption system.  Many have given up, and so when I was out personally gathering the 18,800 signatures, many people who signed for me signed for me because I am running on the libertarian ticket.  I think it is time for a change,  The candidates presently running are running for an office they have no idea what that office is about.  They trample on the Constitution and the peoples rights without any consequences.  Lansing has become totally cloaked in darkness.  We need to change this.
Keller: Libertarians commonly follow the motto, “Less government is better government.” What is one area in which you think more government would actually be better?

Tatar: Less government more liberty.  This government is much too large and too many rules, ordinances, and enforcement officers,  Consequently too many fines, and too many people incarcerated for non violent crime.  Much to much government. Have you been to Lansing lately?  This is a mega city.

Keller: In continuation of the last question, what is one area of government you want to see cut or even erased?

Tatar: Dept of education, Dept of transportation cut, Dept of State cut, Eliminate the Senate, part time legislature on and on.

Keller: What would a libertarian governorship look like in Michigan? In other words, what policies would you want to see enacted?

Tatar: Follow the US Constitution, Follow the Michigan Constitution, re write the oath of office to include if anyone in the legislature, executive or judicial takes a bribe or promises anything that is a felony.

Seriously cut back the size and scope of government. More liberty to the people.  Also eliminate the state income tax and cut back on many other taxes if not eliminate them.  Concentrate on fixing the MI infrastructure.  See my website: johnjtatar.com

Keller: The “Flint, Michigan” story was national news for sometime. How do you view the handling of this issue, and what would you change, if anything?

Tatar: Flint is in the national news because the government was caught “usurping” authority.  All of Michigan water is polluted. That is a sin.  The infrastructure in MI has not been kept up.  All citizens must do house keeping from time to time and so the government needs to do house keeping also.  Instead, the “public functionaries” line their pockets and walk away laughing at the people in MI.

Keller: As Governor, what would be more important to you: following federal mandates from Washington D.C. or serving the state of Michigan?

Tatar: All federal mandates if unconstitutional are “null and void”!!!  Michigan is its own country, we are not a colony of Washington.

Keller: If someone was interested in your campaign, how could they get involved?

Tatar: Go to my website johnjtatar.com and there are ways of contacting me.

Keller: Do you have any final remarks for the audience?

Tatar: We are on the very edge of losing our Republic and sliding back to a Democracy where the Oligarchs will become kings and we will become slaves to those in charge.  What way do you want to go?
I would like to thank John Tatar for his time. Be sure to visit his website to learn more.

To help support 71 Republic, donate to our Patreon, which you can find by clicking here.


The Founding Fathers Would Be Furious At What America Has Become

By Jack Parkos | United States

Many people have asked the question-“What would the Founding Fathers think of this policy or that law?”  Many also ask the question of what they would think of modern America in general. They would be furious.

The Founders, while all having their own diverse ideologies and values, believed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America has abandoned these values both in policy and morality. This would have the Founders up in arms. Here are just some of the many reasons the founders are rolling over in their graves.

1. Supreme Court Rulings

The Supreme Court has allowed some very unconstitutional laws to be passed, they also have made some unconstitutional rulings. Take the case of Maryland v. King in 2013. Where the supreme court ruled that police can (without a warrant) take DNA swabs from people not yet convicted of a crime.

This is obviously a violation of the Fourth Amendment-but the Supreme Court ruled it wasn’t! The Founders would be enraged at a ruling allowing your DNA to be put into a system-even if you are wrongly arrested. Another example of the Supreme Court ruling wrongly is Roe V. Wade.

This would anger the Founders for several reasons. While we can’t be 100 percent sure, it seems very likely the founders would be against abortion. Regardless of personal stances, none of the founders would agree with abortion being a constitutional right. Roe V. Wade also ruled that the states could no longer make their own decisions on abortion, this would cause many of the Founding Fathers to be enraged.

2. Gun Control

The Founders wrote the second amendment, which says.

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.

The argument that it was for muskets is untrue. The Founders would not support gun control just because weapons got more advanced. Don’t believe me? Well James Madison, the Father of the Constitution (which includes the 2nd Amendment), allowed for cannons to be used on to protect private vessels.

He wrote this in the Letter of Marque, stating the 2nd amendment protected their right to defend their ships with cannons. The Founders would in no way support banning “assault weapons”. The very idea of this would anger them greatly. They wrote that the right to be armed “Shall not be infringed” not “Shall be open to debate”.

3. Taxes

The Founders fought their revolution over excessive taxes. Today we pay way more taxes then they did. More than the founders could even imagine. The income tax was implemented in 1913, right at this news the Founders would have spoken out against it. Encouraging protests and civil disobedience.

They may have even called for a revolution.  The Founders got pissed off at a tax on tea, how do you think they would feel about income taxes? But the taxes don’t stop at the income. You must pay a tax (and obtain a government-issued license) to hunt and fish. There are too many taxes to list. Obama’s tax code was 74,608 pages long. Neither the Federalists nor the Anti Federalists would have supported this many taxes.

4. Bureaucracy

The Founders also fought the revolution because they had no say in the matters of government. They wrote the constitution to have elected representatives to represent the people’s affairs. But America has fallen into bureaucracy. True, we still have some elected officials, but the bureaucrats have corrupted the system.

The US Federal government has over 2.6 million employees and over 2,000 agencies with various powers. How many of these people are elected officials? The whole point of the revolution was for representation in government. The republic was set up so the people could elect representatives to make laws. But we did not elect 2.6 million people to make decisions for us. This is pure blasphemy!

5. Disregard of the Tenth Amendment

States Rights, or if you prefer the term states powers, have been disregarded by the Federal government. State’s rights have a bad rep nowadays as fighting for states rights is associated with slavery and racism. But this is not true. The Tenth Amendment was a key amendment to the constitution.

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.

This idea was talked about in the constitutional convention, the anti-federalists wanted to make sure the constitution respected states rights, thus the tenth amendment was born. But it has been ignored.  The supreme court has allowed this amendment to be disregarded to push an agenda.

The Founding Fathers would be furious at this! The tenth amendment would allow different states to make their own choices. Thus allowing more individual choice. You could live in a state that shares values with you (so long as it does not violate the constitution).

But when the tenth amendment is ignored, we are left giving more power to the federal government. The federal government is less local and more tyrannical in nature. The Founders knew this and added the tenth amendment to try to protect the states. But thanks to blasphemous supreme court rulings and awful politicians, the tenth amendment is another part of the constitution the Federal Government has gutted.

6. The Empire

None of the Founders would like our modern American Empire. They fought a revolution against an empire. I have written on the subject of America and it’s imperial tendencies. None of the Founding Fathers wanted an empire. The British Empire ruled all around Earth. The cost of this empire was dropped on the colonies in the form of taxes. This was a reason for the revolution. Nowadays, Americans pay many taxes to maintain constant warfare overseas. America was not meant to be an Empire. The current state of our foreign policy would enrage the founders of our country.

These are only a few reasons our Founding Fathers would be furious at what America has become. This is only the tip of the iceberg. While it is true the Founders did not all have the exact same beliefs, they all would agree that change is needed in America and that we must return to the standards of liberty this country was born on.

California Shooting Proves the Futility and Tyranny of State’s Rights

By Ryan Lau | USA

Just this Tuesday, as many have most likely already heard, 43-year-old Kevin Neal went on a rampage in Tehama County, California, slaughtering four people and injuring at least ten others. These horrific events in Northern California early Tuesday morning have once again called the issue of gun control to the front lines of political dispute between Democrats and Republicans. It is with great sorrow and regret that I feel it necessary to write about this event today, however, as once again, both parties are succeeding at infringing upon the rights of the people. Already, several California lawmakers have called for a tightening of existing gun laws. Despite this, if their intended policy measures were to pass, their cries would only be met with more tears following the next preventable death from gun violence.  

The simple fact of the matter is, Neal committed these murders using a semi-automatic rifle. Authorities are also still trying to determine whether or not the shooter was further armed with an AR-15 assault rifle. But wait, aren’t those two of the weapons that fell under California Governor Jerry Brown’s recent ban on all automatic and semiautomatic rifles? Or, seeing as Neal injured an elementary school child while on the school’s grounds, is it contradictory of California Assembly Bill 424, which Brown signed just one month ago, that prohibits a school superintendent from allowing any guns to be carried or concealed on school property? Both actions were clearly illegal, and yet Neal still decided to carry these weapons in a prohibited location. Perhaps, as the name would suggest, a criminal is not apt to follow further laws against his illicit activity. Thus, a lack of adequate firearm restrictions cannot be blamed for the events.

If inadequate laws are not the culprit, is there one in addition to Neal? Though many critics of gun restrictions will point out that Neal chose to break the law, and thus Neal is the only one responsible, they, in fact, are missing a clear piece of information. Upon a simple analysis, it becomes apparent that the very laws put into effect to stop tragedies such as these have adverse effects, worsening them by raising the death and injury toll.

Take, for example, AB 424, which as previously stated, prevents teachers from carrying guns on school grounds in the interest of students’ safety. What this bill does not do, however, is disarm the security guards and other safety personnel, such as police officers permanently or temporarily stationed within the building. Why is it that Governor Brown permits those wearing one uniform to hold a weapon, but not those in another? Of course, the safety personnel have gone through a higher degree of training, but in an active shooter situation, seconds can make the difference between life and death, and if a teacher is unarmed, and a security guard in another wing of the school, Governor Brown may have additional lives on his hands, as the teacher was unable to protect his or herself and students due to his ill-fated policy. A recommendation that teachers be fully trained and armed, or at the very minimum, not legally prohibited from doing so, ironically under the ultimate threat of gunpoint, will absolutely ensure the safety of more individuals and may have reduced the death and/or injury count Neal was able to cause.

Needless to say, Governor Brown is not the only source of such abysmal and life-threatening policy. Any governor or other member of state legislation is entirely capable of infringing upon the rights of the people and equally capable of causing deaths due to these infringements. Quite ironically, the very system that permits this method of oppression is often revered by those who claim to preach in favor of small government. Yes, you may have guessed it, I’m referring to State’s Rights.

Originally, the concept of State’s Rights was of course granted by the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which many consider to be an infallible document. Nevertheless, it is a dated document that by no means could have ever predicted the size and scope of today’s federal government. Though written to restrict it, the Bill of Rights has either permitted or been powerless to prevent mass government expansion into its current bloated form. Given the number of laws that exist today, it is simply incomprehensible how advocates for a more limited government can possibly argue for a state to have the right to create more.

Our federal government currently protects the individual right to bear arms, a rare case in which the federal government’s policy coincides with the Natural Rights of the individual. Why on earth should we give the states the power to interfere with this, just because they occupy a smaller total land area and contain fewer people? No individual or collective of individuals is authorized to infringe upon the Natural Rights of another, and whether that collective has domain over land in the shape of America, California, or Tehama country is entirely irrelevant. Reduction in land size does not escape the inherent tyranny of a government deciding what a peaceful individual may or may not do.

We as Americans face many clear issues, from gun violence to the restriction of rights. However, the solutions can never be to further limit the actions of peaceful individuals. Doing so is futile, as it will never fully restrict the actions of those who are a true threat to society, and in doing so, the rights of the innocent and further robbed, and the government racket only continues to grow. We already have a strong federal government that tightly controls American lives. Rather than trying to strengthen another layer of statism, it is absolutely imperative that we weaken the power of the federal government and allow individuals the freedom to act as they please. No state, however small, is justified in robbing this freedom. There is no alternative to a free society, and the recent California shooting proves exactly this notion.