Mobius Strip Press

Civil society is wholly dependent upon the symbiosis between the fundamental principles of liberty: free agency, responsibility, and accountability. When these principles are balanced and in harmony with the individual citizens, Liberty then can act as a catalyst in elevating synergy within the community and society. These synergies will lead to stronger spiritual well being, greater productivity, improved health, and development of wealth.

> Home

> Status on Publications

> About the Authors

> Mission Statement

> Recommended Reading

> Recommended Sites

> Reclaiming the Republic

> Schedule

> Presentations

> Contacts

> Store - Buy Direct from Mobius Strip Press

> Store - (Where to buy our books)

> Local and Community Resources

.: home       .: about us       .: news       .: authors       .: contacts


Mobius Strip Press - Open Letters

Mobius-Strip: A continuum of a relative surface

MobiusStripPress: A continuum of relative narratives

Constitutional Orthodoxy:

Constitutional Orthodoxy is adhering to the codified processes that were established within the Constitution as defined by the States (founders) during the ratification process.  Consequently, the founders dictated and enumerated the limitations and scope of the general government as a delegated entity within the Hybrid Constitutional Republic.  Returning to Constitutional Orthodoxy is the only course that will preserve the Constitution, Individual Liberty, and the Republic.


dtd 24 May 2015

Mr. Beck:
Over the years I have both watched and listened to you on television and radio – teach and plead to your audience that they must act upon, respond, or simply understand essential information in an effort to stop or slow the growth of evil. I can vividly remember you stating that it doesn't matter where the idea or solution comes from; what we must do is work together on a common solution. As you know, it is division that keeps us from taking back our Republic. Allow me to be bold up front – I believe I have a solution you have not heard of; it’s called Republic Review.

This weekend most are commemorating or celebrating Memorial Day in remembering those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. It just so happens that Memorial Day is occurring on the anniversary of the commencement of the Constitutional Convention. Some may be torn or feel the remembrance of the sacrifice of life paramount; however, I consider the Constitution as the sanctifying of their sacrifice. It was the Constitution that facilitated the flowing of liberty to all Continents. At the same time the regurgitation of Platonism or the Statist ideology began to flow from Europe. I can elucidate on this as I know you can as well, but I am trying to be brief.

As a very few of us commemorate the 228th anniversary of the commencement of the Constitutional Convention tomorrow; I feel constrained to plead for your consideration of a Constitutional Concept known as Republic Review. Allow me to briefly explain:


Our Constitution is simply a contract drafted by State Delegates. Once approved by the convention the final version went to the States for ratification or approval and acceptance. During the Convention Madison kept notes as to what was discussed and how logic was applied to the merits and arguments for almost every line incorporated into the Constitution. Furthermore, as each State went through the ratification process, the body of the States representatives along with the delegates (who were present at the Convention) examined the Constitution line by line. As such, the States defined and documented what each line meant. In contract law; this makes the ratification debates appendages to the contract (i.e. Constitution).

When one reads the ratification debates it's clear that Supreme Court rulings and opinions from Marshall to present day have successfully blurred the true meaning of the Constitution; its limitations, and the fact that the State’s possess the greater powers in “all things not enumerated” in the Constitution.

The Constitution allows for change or modification, which is found in Article V. As ratified, only the States possess the power to authorize new roles, responsibilities, and powers (RRP’s). The general government (i.e. the Federal government) was not given any power or authority to assume any new RRP’s via legislation, rulings/opinions, or executive order. Consequently; therefore, Marshall and fellow politicians quickly perverted the Constitution. I can go into a lot of details but again, I am trying to be brief…

States are the primary stake holders of the Constitution, not the general (i.e. Federal) government. According to Jefferson, Madison, and many other framers, the State’s possess the duty and obligation to hold the general government in check. Madison in 1817 in his veto of the Bonus Bill clearly argued that the General Welfare, Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Supremacy clause were not portals for the federal government to assume any new roles, responsibilities, or powers (RRPs), and that the Federal government must adhere to the Article V process and appeal to the States to amend the Constitution before they can execute any new RRP.

It does not take a genius to understand what has happened since John Quincy Adams left office: the federal government started a very slow process of assumption, usurpation, and growth so that today they are on the brink of creating a Department of Babysitting! This first egregious assumption was the creation of the Department of Interior in 1849. Almost every Department, Agency, or Office created since 1849 has been an Article V violation. Marshall said the Federal government did not need to adhere to the Constitutional contract due to his redefining the Constitution in his many landmark case rulings. However, as a member of the Virginia Ratification debate Marshall knew he was perverting the Constitution and admitted he subscribed to Hamilton’s concepts of assumption powers. Never-the-less, regardless of the infraction there are no statutes of limitations built into the Constitution. Just because the States have been duped or State politicians have been complicit in the unconstitutional growth of the federal government, these usurpations do not make unconstitutional RRP Constitutional.


What does the principle stakeholder do when a contract is violated? They read and audit the contract! The power is always vested in the principle of the contract to perform an audit. Again, I can elaborate on the Constitutionality of this, but I am being brief… In this case, the only thing the Republic needs to do is convene a “Convention for Republic Review” or simply audit the Constitution. The convention would only review Article V infractions. Specifically, all RRP’s that are being executed or performed that have not been amended to the Constitution, which over the past two centuries amounts to quite a few infractions.

The Republic must decide if they want to amend the Constitution to delegate any of these assumed RRP’s to the general government or the Republic must direct the general government to cease the assumed non-enumerated RRPs within a reasonable time frame, cease funding these RRPs, and return these RRPs back to the States. I have many suggestions and not one is to delegate any of these powers back to the federal government.


Mr. Beck, I hear and share your frustration expressed on air and in your multimedia productions. I consider our Constitution a sacred document that was bestowed upon the framers by divine providence for the governance of all mankind. I believe you are sincere in your acts and deeds in trying to change the course of this Republic, and I am amazed at the resources you are using to do this.

I also believe the Constitution and its accompanying founding documents possesses the necessary evidence for the Republic to heal itself and that it's up to righteous men and women (as Thomas Monson quoted Burke in the Feb 2014 Ensign) to get informed and get involved. Stated differently, to step forward and dispose of the offending usurpations – or our Republic will face an unnecessary rebuke that will level us to the lowest of the world’s standards and tyranny.

If you would like to validate my assertions you can speak to Dr. John R. Vile, Ph.D. - Dean and Professor of Political Science at Middle Tennessee State University. He has read both my books -
We the People: Whose Constitution is it Anyway? and We the People: The Strategy to Convene a Convention - and is planning on quoting them in his next book.

In my second book We the People: The Strategy to Convene a Convention, I specifically mention you as the person best suited to move the Republic Review forward. An abstract on my website breaks down the strategy to unite the Republic without millions of marchers. I cannot do this alone and do not seek fame/distinction; I only seek to teach the simple truth about our Constitutional Republic and its framework. This can be done only a few Constitutional Warriors in each State and you easily have that connection with righteous men and women.

I need not tell you how blessed we are to be living in this nation (despite unconstitutional violations) and what a blessing and opportunity we have to take a stand and actually save and take back our Constitution and Republic.

I humbly request your consideration and time regarding the Republic Review. I simply ask for an opportunity to discuss this critically important matter further. I am so confident in my premise that I will gladly buy you lunch in Dallas if you conclude it is not a sound solution in returning our Republic to our founding principles and aligning our Federal government with the Constitution once again.

Thank you in advance.
G. R. Mobley
The 10-Feb Club


Reply 2 dtd 25 May 2015

Mr. Beck:
Please forgive me and thank you for your time in replying, I know you are busy with all your endeavors and I fear my reply is more verbose than you have time, but again I have a testimony that these words will resonate with those like yourself who have studied the Constitution.  To provide you with the level of information necessary to for you to discern for yourself whether this is a legitimate and Constitutional endeavor it would require a little prayer and dialogue. It usually only takes me an hour to spark the interest but to academically go through the facts this can take hours citing many different documents.  Moreover, I recognize the hand of the Lord in all things and recognize you’re the time you took was not a happenstance.  As far as academically working though the argument for Republic I am batting a thousand thus far, and everyone I speak to asks me why I have not taken this to you, so here I am… 


I really need an hour at least to provide you with enough details and the basis of Republic Review for you to conclude its constitutionality. I obviously failed previously to articulate what Republic Review is, and differentiating it from the Article V process. These are not the same, one is a defined process and the other is a natural right or obligation of oversight. You could read my books for the deeper details, but I would rather try to provide you with a elementary level of information regarding the premise of Republic Review. Republic Review is the act of the States asserting their natural right and power to audit their contract. You see the Constitution is a contract amongst the States. As you know the general government did not ratify the Constitution nor can they ratify an amendment. So please forgive me regarding the length of this epistle and if I do any repeating in this reply, but due to the inculcation of Federalism in our Republic, it takes a little effort to move one to the right side of republicanism and what I call our hybrid Constitutional Republic. So I will be a little less brief…


Republic Review is a Convention that is specific just like the Constitution. The Constitution is defined in scope that the general government cannot make any modifications to the Constitution what-so-ever. The scope of Republic Review is to “review” all roles, responsibilities, and powers (RRPs) that are not enumerated in the Constitution. Stated differently, this convention will isolate all RRPs that were not ratified through the Article V process and determine whether the Republic desires these RRPs to be retained. If a RRP is considered best kept in the general governments hands then a recommendation to the general government will go forth for them to create an amendment per the Article V process. For example the Republic desires the general government should keep the Department of Education then the Republic will admonish the general government for not following the Article V process and request that they present an amendment for their consideration. If a RRP is not deemed best to be retained in the general government’s hand, then the Republic Review body will provide a time line for the RRP to be defunded and discarded and the RRP will return to the Republic and retained there as stipulated in the Constitution’s appendages. There is more to it than this and I do not want to over simplify this, but this is not an Article V Convention. As you know, this process requires two-thirds of both houses to pass a new RRP for it to become worthy of becoming an amendment (i.e. an Amendment), it then goes to the President for approval, who in turn signs the RRP for the general government and the President sends the RRP to the States for three-fourth approval (i.e. ratification).


For example, if you, and your fellow neighbors had a similar contract that delegated specific powers to say a landscaper to make your neighborhood the most beautiful in the entire State and let’s say your community was naïve to give the landscaper any power necessary to accomplish this. Would your community be surprised the next day when everyone came home from work to find his equipment in your houses and your furnishings out in the back of your house? You shouldn’t be, because you gave him a blank check. If one reads the Ratification debates there is no doubt that the general government was strictly constrained to their limited powers. Fortunately the framers did not leave the general government with an open-ended contract; the problem has been the complacency of the States and the machinations of politicians both Federal and State to seize powers violating the Constitution and the evidence is obvious that the general government’s powers are limited and defined. Again, this comes clear once one reads the founding documents as artifacts of a contract.


The prodigious culprit in perverting the Constitution was Justice John Marshall for he poured the footings for future usurpations. In Marshall’s landmark rulings he was well aware that he was violating the terms of the contract because he was at the Virginia Ratification debates with Madison, Mason, Henry and all the other representatives and delegates. Once Marshall was appointed Chief Justice the four new States were oblivious to the Ratification debates, and the previous States failed to review these documents and measures for Constitutional grounding. Consequently, Marshall began to make his nefarious opinions in his rulings and he was smart enough to bury these opinions behind a ruling that was correct.


Marshall’s unconstitutional footings can be found in the following cases:
1. Marbury v Madison, 1803, he assumed the power of judicial rule and that the court could determine the Constitutionality of all things. This violated the Judiciary Acts and Congress and the States have still failed to fix this.
2. Fletcher v Peck, 1810, he assumed authority for the general government over the States in matters of contract and the ability to repudiate their contracts.
3. Sturges v. Crowninshield, 1819, he usurped the ability to interfere again with State contracts and restricting the States from creating their own bankruptcy laws.4. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819, he injected into the mortality of corporations and a State’s ability to challenge such contracts.
5. McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819, he invented the liberal construction of the Constitution that the general government was supreme in all things necessary and proper creating a living Constitution.
6. Cohens v. Virginia, 1821, an additional ruling usurping the States supremacy in all things not delegated to the general government when Marshall consider the general government supreme in all things he assumed.
7. Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824, Marshall assumed federal power over interstate commerce instead of the actual Constitutional role as the arbiter in Commerce between States when two or more States had a dispute.
To be clear, the base outcome of his rulings may have been sound, but his verbiage crossed Constitutional boundaries and were patently incorrect. The obvious reason why the Republic and good leaders like Madison did not rise to refute these deliberate inserted opinions within the ruling were likely because these stalwarts of the Constitution did not recognize the fact that future cases would use rambling opinions to obfuscate the Constitution and subvert the Republic… but I digress.


Again, the Constitution is a contract and this contract does not give allowance to case law to allow rulings and opinions to wander and evolve as many self-aggrandizing lawyers have asserted because case law gives them power and sterilizes the States of their power. Had the framers stated that the Judicial branch would be able to make thing constitutional by a ruling do you think the States would have ratified the Constitution? Of course not! Any wandering and evolving by the bench still required any and all changes to go through the Article V process, originating in Congress, as was delineated in the ratification debates or the States delineated the fact that the States were the final arbiters of all new RRPs.


Bottom line, The Article V process did not occur when the general government created the Department of Interior in 1849 as well many if not all of the other new Departments that have been erected in Washington DC from then to today. Does anyone think the Bureau of Land Management is a good use of our tax dollars today? The narrative and assumption was by this time that the general government had the power to create new RRPs, because they gained a monopoly of interpreting the Constitution and hide its appendages (i.e. the Ratification Debates). The fact is, they failed to follow the Article V process and there is no amendment giving them this power. It seems that they were making it up as they went along and deliberately undermined the Constitution.


To close the door on the use of the mystical clauses (i.e. General Welfare, Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Supremacy) that Marshall and many since him have asserted one should read Madison’s, Monroe’s, and Jackson’s vetoes of previous attempts of the general government to create a Department of Transportation they all stated that the general government cannot assume any new RRP’s without the States amending the Constitution. Madison said it best in his 1817 address you can find here:


If you read Madison’s Veto, he eloquently states that the general government cannot use the clauses I previous mentioned to gain any new powers. Even after three President’s, one of which who wrote the Constitution, stated that we must amend the Constitution to create a simple Department of Transportation; therefore, can some please help me find this Amendment, because we have a Department of Transportation in operation under the general government… Washington in his Farewell Address stated something similar that the Republic should not allow the usurpation of powers. That all new RRPs must go through the Article V process or what he refers to the instrument that allows for amendment.


The power for Republic Review (or to audit the Constitution or contract) is granted as principle stakeholders of any contract. If one reads the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, also known today as the nullification Resolutions it is very clear that the common understanding was that the Constitution was a contract amongst the States, and that the States naturally and rightfully possessed the power to nullify all unconstitutional RRPs. Jefferson and Madison simply articulated a condensed version of what was argued in the many Ratification debates, as it was defined to each State and even what was promulgated in the Federalist Papers.


Both Jefferson and Madison succinctly and concisely articulated that the States all power necessary on matters that were not enumerated and were not to be subjugated to an entity that created by serve the Republic. Moreover, Jefferson and Madison clearly argue that they needed to go through the Article V process regarding unconstitutional RRPs usurped by the general government. Madison spoke of this in the Virginia Ratification debates and used a metaphor of 1000 acres to illustrate his point. In Federalist Paper 46, Madison asserted that “were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter (the States) would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. The tools Madison was referring to was the Republic or in essence the confederacy which still remained. What the framers created was a hybrid Constitutional Republic by limiting powers to the Federal government and leaving all other powers to the States both individually and collectively if necessary. This created another direction for the Separation of powers, what I refer to as a vertical direction in contrast to the horizontal separation that all understand between the different branches. This is why Jefferson and Madison appealed to the rest of the union or States Legislators and not Congress in their attempt to strike down the unconstitutional Acts.


Republic Review is the next tool in line after nullification. Had Jefferson and Madison obtained three more States (totaling 5) to support nullification they could have asserted that by virtue of the contract the general government did not possess the necessary three-fourths to make the Act Constitutional in granting the new powers. This is because 5 States out of the existing 16 would have kept the other States from constitutionally ratifying the Acts. Regardless, Adams and Congress failed to use the Article V process so these Acts still languish as unconstitutional until the Republic addresses them. There are no statutes of limitation within the Constitution.


Of course Republic Review is something I coined for differentiating it from the Article V Convention. I too considered the Article V Convention as the initial solution, but to many people did not realize the power of the Republic to discard any RRP not granted as a principle in any contract dispute.


I too believe in the Article V process in amending the Constitution, but with all the unconstitutional RRPs the general government will either spend us into bankruptcy or they will suspend the Constitution for political expediency; thus I do not believe we have the time other than Republic Review to save the Constitution and the Republic. We do not have the time and I recognize yours and all good citizens’ frustration as we continue to hurl down this path that will destroy the Republic, our individual liberties, and our individual sovereignty.


In a macro perspective, a Convention for Republic Review is convened at the States behest not Congress and does not have to convene in a single location because it is an audit not a body to write, rewrite, amend, or modify the Constitution. I have stated in my books this can be done online from each State Capital. The only thing we need is the State Legislators of 34 States, to remain harmonious to the Article V standard by getting two-thirds of the States motivated to intervene in their citizen’s behalf. We only need 13 State to reject any of the unconstitutional RRPs because this means that the unconstitutional RRPs will fail to gain the necessary Article V requirement to make these RRPs Constitutional as a necessary Amendment.


I will admit this flies in the face of most Constitutional lawyers because it falls outside their realm of power and outside their court system, but the framers created a hybrid Constitutional Republic capable of withstand the turmoil of political avarice and did not vest the powers to lawyers and the courts they invested their faith in the people of the several States. It only requires vigilance to safeguard it, but with complacency we see what can happen. I know you will not accept what the men behind the curtain, behind the lectern, or in black robes attest – that they have all the power, so will you allow me to present a briefing regarding Republic Review or you can read for yourself what I call the appendages to our contract? If you do you will change you paradigm especially if you begin to look at the Constitution as a contract amongst the States and not a mystical installment of omnipotent power into the general government. If you want to watch a few of my presentations a friend has posted them here:


Finally, in my second book I identify you and your organization (the Blaze) as the “Best Fit” for saving us. I know this seems like a big charter and it is, but it is small when you consider how the Republic is starving for a Constitutional solution for an unconstitutional leviathan. The citizens will soak it in as I have found with several groups and the toughest of groups is the Constitution Association who studies the Constitution annually. I believe I refer to you well over thirty times and I speak of how this whole process would change how you occupy Media market space. You can read an abstract of my business plan I hope to present to you or another Media outlet to teach the Republic in 16 hour videos by myself and the Constitution Association on the what, why, where, and how to take the Republic back. An abstract of the proposal is here:


Again thank you for your time on a day that commemorates the 228 anniversary of the convening of our Constitutional Convention that also turns out to be the day we memorialize how this land was redeemed by the ultimate sacrifice for us to even have our Constitution.


Best Regards
G. R. Mobley




Copyright©2012 All Rights Reserved Mobius Strip Press LLC