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

> State Ratification Debate Extracts

> 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 Statement of Facts

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.

The following are two Statements of Facts:

Appendix A: The Presentation to the Public - A Statement of Facts

Note: These petitions and reference materials will be available on the Mobius Strip Press website for all Constitutional warriors to reuse or modify as one would deem necessary. These are provided as samples of how to address and engage public servants.
There are two statements below. The first is a short “abridged” statement for those city council or public meetings that only allow a minute or two. The second is the full statement of facts. Introductions and impressions are important. They help set the tone and demeanor of those receiving the message. Therefore, the list directly below is simple examples of how one can begin and set the tone of their presentation. Insert an appropriate greeting such as:

  1. Good evening honorable members of the City Council of <City Name>, and the esteemed citizens of this fine city,
  2. Good afternoon <state title and name (i.e. Sherriff Adams)>,


The Abridged Presentation

Let me apologize now, for those here who are offended by my assertion to all present, that you are sitting here <time of day (i.e. today or tonight) in ignorance. There are two sides to ignorance. First and foremost, ignorance is bliss and secondly, in the eyes of the law, ignorance is no excuse. However, I am going to prove to you that deep down you are not ignorant, you have been lulled into a sleep of apathy towards what I will call little (r) republicanism.
Let me attempt to explain by first asking you these questions:
Question 1: Who here knows the significance of President’s Madison, Monroe, and Jackson’s veto’s of highway bills to Federal Government today?
Question 2: Who here understands the Constitutional significance that Thomas Jefferson argued in the Kentucky Resolution and Madison argued in the Virginia Resolution and what nullification means?
Question 3: Who here understands the Article V process and why the Tenth Amendment was inserted into the Bill of Rights in 1789?
Question 4: Who understands why the States are the founders and what was testified and how they interpreted the Constitution in their ratification debates is the Constitutional definition within the context of the “contract” that the States agreed to and is legally binding?
Question 5: Who here understands the damage that occurred to our Constitutional Republic when Chief Justice Marshall ruled in the following cases of Marbury v Madison, Fletcher v Peck, Sturges v. Crowninshield, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, or Gibbons v. Ogden?
Question 6: Who here understands how in spite of questions 1-4 the Federal government now has roles, responsibilities, and powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution nor have they been amended to the Constitution?
Question 7: Who here understands that question 5 was the beginning of Federal usurpation of roles, responsibilities, and powers?
In a nutshell, everyone here probably remembers learning about the Bill of Rights as Amendments to the Constitution, but who remembers why between 1791 and 1803 that there were three amendments suggested to the Constitution and two were ratified relatively quickly and the third was not ratified until 1992? The why, is not because of the intents of the amendments, but the fact that the accepted process to make any changes to the Constitution must be done through the Article V process.
Therefore, if one would read the veto’s asked about in question one, everyone here would come to the same conclusion and ask the same question? If Madison, Monroe, and Jackson insisted that you had to amend the Constitution to create a Department of Transportation, then how is it that a Department of Transportation exists today without an Amendment? Remember it was Madison who wrote the Constitution, so I believe we can all rest assured that he knew what he was talking about.
Who here thinks that when the States convened the Constitutional Convention that they gave the Federal government all powers in all things. Anyone who has learned even a cursory level of our Revolutionary War and the founding moments of this nation, there is no way the framers suggested that the Federal government be given unlimited powers. In understanding Constitutional government it is the Constitution that gives a government its powers and limits it to those powers as we have all learned this to some degree. The only way the Federal government has been able to grow to this degree has been by blatantly violating the Constitution and I am prepared to prove this to the extreme degree if necessary to call upon you to act.
Since my time is limited, let me conclude with this:
If this information has caused you to think, if somehow these questions have raised your interest, and you too find that you were ignorant on these issues as I was, then I will first assert that the Constitution is bleeding and it is almost useless. We all have blood on our hands as we all see our Federal government quickly approaching a point of discarding the Constitution so that they can continue to use the IRS to root out their political enemies, use the NSA to continue to spy on law abiding citizens, continue to use drones here in America, and continue to take our liberties. We all have blood on our hands because we are all under oaths as citizens and some here are under the oath of office. Both the citizen’s oath and all oath’s of office state that we will agree to defend and protect the Constitution. So I will ask a few more questions:
1. What or how have you defended or protected the Constitution recently? There is only one thing that you and I can do that will protect and defend the Constitution, but I am out of time now.
2. My final question is this, I respectfully request that I be given a chance to address this body in full so you can learn what is considered as the “Statement of Facts” and what you can do to help live up to your oath of office and as citizens of this once great Republic.
Thank you!                 
May I continue for 15 minutes or can I schedule for the next meeting 15 minutes of allotted time to present the Statement of Facts?

The Full Presentation

I appreciate you(r) allocating this time for me to plead to you and to take a stand for us, your constituents, as a patriot, and as one who has pledged an oath of office, and even to all citizens who are accountable to the implied oath of citizenship.
Let me preface my statement with the fact that every citizen is accountable to the oath of citizenship and has a personal, ethical, and moral obligation to this oath. As you are aware of, or should be aware of, the first thing all citizens and public servants swear to is that they will “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Unfortunately too many people today do not understand the significance and importance their role plays in our representative Republic, which yes, even you as a citizen and local public servant are integral in the checks and balances of our government. Therefore, if one considers the recent acts of Federal tyranny such as:

  1. The IRS intimidation
  2. The silencing of persons and political organizations
  3. NSA spying on Americans
  4. The Department of Justice (DOJ) spying on journalists
  5. DOJ violating gun laws for political purposes
  6. The State Department reducing security in Libya and placing the nations Ambassador at risk and not responding to their cries for security and help that resulted in four deaths
  7. Violation of contract laws for political purposes
  8. Violating the Uniformity Clause with bailouts to banks, corporations, and industries
  9. Passing a Defense funding authorization that included the ability to detain US citizens indefinitely by a military force.
  10. The deployment of drones in the United States

Listed above are clearly acts of tyranny that are considered common knowledge. Therefore, if one does not understand representative government, there is a specific reason why both the citizens and all public servants and representatives take an oath. This oath first has the aforementioned swear to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” and that is because the nature of man engaging in energies of government tend to accumulate and centralize powers and then tyranny and despotism prevail, which is why James Madison said:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” This is why the framers placed checks and balances both horizontally within the Federal government and vertically amongst the governed by way of the States.

That said, the information I am going to present is not only accurate, this information is irrefutable. I have little doubt that this may be the first time you have received this information to this degree of detail. However, as one who serves in an official capacity of public service, this commitment of your oath becomes a professional obligation in addition to the obligation of citizenship.

To the average citizen, it appears we have governed the Republic for over a century, without requiring the States to have to intervene on behalf of the citizens and the Republic. I am here to testify to you that this tranquil governance has been a façade and that the Republic is now in a greater peril than those threats that drove us to either World War. As our national debt continues to rise, our general government unconstitutionally assumes more roles, responsibilities, and powers (RRP’s), and as our liberties continue to fall by the wayside – the time for the Republic to act is now, before the Republic and the Constitution is discarded from a sundry of Constitutional hazards.

The issue at hand is one of contract, authority, and responsibility. The Constitution is the “contract” the States created to empower the general government with limited and defined RRP’s known as enumerations of powers. The “authority and responsibility” based upon the “contract is exclusively held by the States, with the only exception given to the general government on few limited and defined powers. Therefore, the States are cognizant and possess the authority to interpose and contain the general government within the Constitutional boundaries, before the general government decimates the good and honorable standing of our union and discards our Constitution for political expediency. Consequently, for over a century political servants have violated their oaths of office and have served ideologies and agendas, both of which are unconstitutional in this Republic. Therefore, as a representative Republic, we only have one course of action and to substantiate this fact the packet of documentation and reference materials I will provide you; should not only be a sobering wakeup call, but an assertion for you as public servant in the Republic to fulfill your oath and duty.

One does not need to be a historian to know that America fought the Revolutionary War over the “Intolerable Acts” of the British Crown and Parliament, which included taxation without representation, warrantless searches, confiscation of property, or imprisonment without habeas corpus, and other acts of tyranny. Therefore, after the Revolutionary War, the framers were not only distrustful of centralizing powers in a central government again; they would not accept unchecked powers of a general government. This is why the framers instilled the aforementioned checks and balances, which included a full check on the Federal government by the States. One check was Article V in the Constitution to restrain the assumption of new RRP’s, which required THREE-FOURTHS of the States to approve.
Therefore, as the Constitution was being ratified by each State, these strict limitations were not only mentioned, they were spelled out and defined. Even though the general government was clearly constrained to the enumerated powers, the States still demanded the insertion of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights ensures that a clear, concise, and succinct restraint was defined, which was the intent of the tenth amendment. Thus, stating “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.”
To be clear, this assertion by some would call this a perspective of “original intent.” However, this cannot be construed as “original intent” because original intent would not possess any force of contract. Original intent, as attested by progressives, marginalizes the hardened contract between the States who delegate limited powers to the general government. Furthermore, original intent does not define the contractual understandings and agreed definitions which were clearly stated by each State in the ratification process of the Constitution. Bear in mind the ratification debates were a contractually binding process where the States elucidated the definition of each line on the Constitution to ensure there were no misconceptions or construed differences that would allow the general government to creep into a supremacy role in all things. Consequently, the Constitution was a compact with force given to the States and not a noble intent, which surrenders all powers to a general government.

Clearly, the Constitutional boundaries were well defined, which is why the Bill of Rights were “Amendments” to the Constitution; thus, following the codified process set forth in Article V of the Constitution. The amendment process was not a guideline, nor was it an option. This is why in 1794 and 1803, two more Amendments were proposed and ratified after the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. One of which simply changed the process of electing the President. This alone testifies to the rigidity of this contract as well as the common perception of these strict limitations placed on the Federal government. There was no allowance for the Federal government to assume any new roles, responsibilities, or powers without the States consent. Bottom line, the States are the owners of this contract and they are still the owners today.

Now let me clarify these limitations and the role of the States in oversight of the Federal government. The first time an egregious violation of the Constitution occurred was the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which is when free speech was restricted, and both Virginia and Kentucky nullified these acts as unconstitutional and had no force in the States of Virginia and Kentucky. These resolutions were written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and are a part of your informational packet.

In March of 1817, when Congress brought to President James Madison a Bill titled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” Madison vetoed it. This is also in your packet informational packet. This Bill was to create a subset of what one can call the Department of Transportation for their time. In Madison’s veto, he admonished Congress that if they wanted to create a role, responsibility, or power such as this, they had to amend the Constitution. In his admonishment, President Madison also pointed out the fact that they could not use the General Welfare Clause, the Commerce Clause, the Necessary or Proper Clause or the Supremacy Clause to assume this power. For these clauses were strictly confined to the enumerated powers in the Constitution only, and not grants of power or authority for the general government to whimsically usurp more power. You must read this message for yourself, to see Madison state in his own words that the Federal government cannot create a Department of Transportation without Amending the Constitution PERIOD.
Consequently, as the framers passed away many noble and nefarious men have been working hard to help the Federal government expand its roles, responsibilities, and powers as they saw fit outside the boundaries of the Constitution. In other words, bypassing and undermining the Constitution. In a duplicitous and underhanded effort to self-aggrandize their role, the Supreme Court began opening their range of powers. In so doing, they also unconstitutionally granted more powers to the Legislative and Executive branches bypassing the Article V process. If one can submit any evidence that in any point in time three-fourths of the States acquiesced to any notion granting the Federal government all powers necessary that they choose to take on then I have simply wasted your time. However, I know no such evidence exists and though the States have failed to coalesce to interpose, retard and undo these almost two centuries of usurpations. If the State fails to do so now, then let the record state that the loss of liberties, life and our Constitution will be on the heads of those citizens and public servants who failed to honor their oath.

What I am asserting to you in the specific case of the Department of Transportation is that there is no amendment granting the Federal government the power to lay taxes for the performance and functions of the role, responsibility, and power in administering a Department of Transportation. In addition, one will not find an Amendment granting the Federal government the authority to lay taxes and to perform the functions of the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health, Education, Welfare, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Homeland Security, and now Obamacare. Therefore, these roles, responsibilities, and powers are unconstitutional and the only recourse for the Republic to address these and correct these egregious violations of the Constitution is to convene a Constitutional Convention and perform a Republic Review, wherein the States can determine whether these roles should be granted to the Federal Government. If so, then an Amendment must be made to the Constitution. If not, then the States retain these powers, or the Republic can choose to grant one, some, or all of these roles to a different polity altogether.

With regard to the Supreme Court having any power or authority to amend the Constitution via declaration or ruling, this would be a direct conflict to the Article V process, and would require an Amendment to this codified process. To be clear, the Judiciary Act of 1789 did not grant the Supreme Court any power or allowance for the Supreme Court to create or grant any new roles, responsibilities, or powers to the general government. The framers and the States during the ratification process clearly left the judiciary within the context of interpreting the contents of the 1) Constitution, 2) ratified Treaties, and 3) the founding documents (for intent). They were not given the power or authority to “perceive,” “create,” or “legislate” new powers. Sovereignty and supreme authority in amending and changing the Constitution is solely left to the States. The allowance for a tribunal or Supreme Court to wield this power would have been a direct threat to the established representative government, which you are a part of in your current position. Moreover, the framers and the States equally insisted on this during the process of creating our Constitutional Republic. This restriction equally applies to the Executive Branch and the office of the President who cannot create new roles, responsibilities, and powers such as environmental, energy, or commerce laws or regulations.

My fellow citizens and servants, as guardians of the Constitution, we must be cognizant that only the States possess the power and authority vested in the Constitution to grant any new role, responsibility, or power. Granting this power to the general government would be destructive to the Republic, tantamount to empowering tyranny, or equal to letting the fox rule the henhouse. Moreover, with this knowledge, one does not have to be a Constitutional scholar to understand that today over two-thirds of the Federal government functions are unconstitutional.

This is why I am providing you with a compiled list of relevant historical documentation and reference materials that not only support these assertions, but profoundly layout the fact that for almost two centuries the Federal government has been usurping the powers of the States. The sad fact is that over this period of a century the States and the local representatives were either unaware of the growing Constitutional crisis or they have simply neglected their roles, responsibilities, and powers of oversight. In some cases the documentation you are receiving is only an overview or summation of many of the documents such as the ratification debates. This is because the ratification debates are so voluminous that only highlights or abridged summations are inserted, and that deeper examination is recommended if one is skeptical of the assertion that the States created a contract for their general government to be restrained from increasing the scope and capacity of their roles, responsibilities, or powers.

As fellow citizens and servants alike, we are all duty bound to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Therefore, if one examines the magnitude and extent of violations and the onerous financial burden the Federal government is recklessly placing upon the Republic, we have no other choice then to coalesce the States again into a Convention and either make these unconstitutional functions Constitutional or we must order the Federal government to cease and desist. This Convention can be accomplished securely, quickly, and can be cost effective by the implementation of modern and secure technology. This prodigious responsibility cannot be delegated or surrendered, or history will show that this generation failed the greatest Republic ever established, as we either go bankrupt or allow the “limited and defined” Federal government to overpower the Republic. In essence, allowing the Federal government to kill the perpetual union of the States and our Constitution as we know it.

As a Constitutional Republic, the only thing that can save the Republic, and restore individual liberty and sovereignty to the people is the Republic. We the People, united at each State possess the whole power of the government to end the tyranny. Each day that goes by where the general government goes unchecked by the energies and power of the Republic, this same general government will continue to usurp more of the Republic’s power and energy, until the Republic finally capitulates. Therefore, our goal must be myopic. You do not need to contribute to an election fund or a fund of one who is not asserting this solution to the problem (for they are a part of the problem), nor do you need to spend any more time on this matter in Washington D.C., unless you have a reasonable doubt or concern to the facts present here at this time. If you have any concerns, then I implore you to read these documents I have provided and referenced. There can be only one reasonable conclusion and that is why I am here today.

I am here to call upon you to uphold your oath of office and sign this petition that calls upon our State Legislatures to convene a Convention with the union of States. I am appealing to your good reason, civil responsibility, and honor to stand up at this historical moment of time, to ignite the restoration of power back to our Constitutional Republic, and to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Let your voice be counted as one for individual liberty and sovereignty and let the annals of history record this prodigious movement with you unequivocally on the record as a defender of liberty and the Constitution.

Thank you and God bless the Republic!


Copyright©2012 All Rights Reserved Mobius Strip Press LLC