What Is A Chairperson?

Indiana Constitution “Article 8 Section 8. There shall be a State Superintendent of Public Instruction, whose method of selection, tenure, duties and compensation shall be prescribed by law.”

When I examine proposed legislation my first stop is the Indiana Constitution because the whole of the contract between State government and the individual rests within the four corners of this document. All State authority must be authorized by this document.

Duties of the Superintendent are prescribed by legislation under the Indiana Constitution. All of the powers of this office are granted exclusively by law which can be changed by the General Assembly through legislation.

Are HB 1609 and SB 1 acts within the powers of the General Assembly?

HB 1609: “Synopsis: State Board of Education. Provides that the members of the state board of education shall elect annually a chairperson from the members of the state board.”

SB 1 :”Citations Affected: IC 9-14; IC 20-18; IC 20-19; IC 22-4.1.

Synopsis: State board of education governance. Makes changes to the composition of the state board of education (state board). Provides that the state board may hire staff and administrative support. Provides that the state board shall meet at least once every six months and at the call of the chairperson. Provides that the state board shall elect a chairperson annually from the members of the state board. Requires the chairperson to provide notice of a state board meeting and make the agenda for the state board meeting available on the state board’s and the department of education’s Internet web sites at least 14 days before the meeting. Provides that a member of the state board may submit a request to the chairperson to amend the agenda at least seven days before the state board meeting. Provides that if the chairperson does not respond or refuses to amend the state board’s agenda, the agenda may be amended to include the agenda item requested at the current or subsequent state board meeting with a majority vote of the state board.Provides that the state board may not take official action on an agenda item added at the current meeting until the next subsequent state board meeting.”

The Education Code Title 20 is extensive and I have found that the only power to approve policy lies within the State Board of Education to be determined by a majority vote of Members – including a vote by the Superintendent under authority granted by the General Assembly as a member of the State Board.

There does not appear to be any additional power granted to a chair than what is customary for the position, namely to open and conduct the meeting and file and notice the agenda, and conduct the meeting.

The public reason as to why there is such controversy and conclusion that the “power of leader” is being removed is going to vary probably depending on exactly how the power of a chairperson is perceived. GA Members and State Board Members have given comments both against and for the ability of Ritz to handle the meetings.

These bills accomplish the same end; to replace the automatic position of chairperson for the State Board of Education.  Current law places the Superintendent of Public Instruction in that position.  SB 1 and HB 1609 would allow every Member of the Board, which includes the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, to have the opportunity to be elected the chairperson for the State Board of Education.

Right To Life

The sovereign individual’s right to Life is being held hostage by the federal “big boys,” as well as by state of Indiana. When abortion is a right (even though it disposes of another person’s life), why does the government at both the federal and state levels believe the power exists for “laws” prohibiting the Liberty to use any substance in order to sustain happiness?

There is no authority in either Constitution providing governmental authority to control life, liberty and happiness. Yet, here we are once again with a bill proposing to “care” about the medical use of a substance that the government has determined is “illegal.”

Senate Bill 284 states:

Synopsis: Medical marijuana. Establishes a medical marijuana program and permits caregivers and patients who have received a physician’s recommendation to possess a certain quantity of marijuana for treatment. Creates the department of marijuana enforcement (DOME) to oversee the program, and creates the DOME advisory committee to review the effectiveness of the program and to consider recommendations from DOME. Authorizes DOME to grant research licenses to research facilities with a physical presence in Indiana. Repeals the controlled substance excise tax and the marijuana eradication program. Makes conforming amendments.’

“WOW! This is great,” I have been told.  “Don’t make any condemnations because it is a step forward.” Yet, if you actually read the citations and the language used in this bill there is nothing to rejoice. Having been a caregiver for a terminal patient and experiencing the regulations of the government as to the care which they would approve, I find no comfort in the notion of SB 284.

First, is this approval for use of the individual? No. Government must establish DOME. What? Oh, the Department of Marijuana Enforcement; just another government agency composed of an advisory committee with four voting members and five non-voting members. Who are these members? Individuals appointed by the speaker and minority leaders of the House, president pro tem, minority leader of the Senate, Commissioner of the Department of Revenue, Director of the Department of Agriculture, and the State Health Commissioner.

The DOME committee shall do the following: “(1) Review rules adopted by DOME. (2) Review legislative proposals suggested by DOME. (3) Evaluate the marijuana research and development program. (4) Evaluate the operation of the medical marijuana program. (5) Consider any other matter which has bearing on the 40 operation of the medical marijuana program.”

Now it really gets interesting. Within this “law” we now have definitions specifying everything from the “adequate supply for treatment,” to who can receive the DOME approved “Medical marijuana card.” Not to be overlooked are the mandatory definitions of a “qualified patient,” and “qualified primary caregiver.”

However, most concerning is the government’s determination of what is considered a “treatable medical condition.”

With  compliance to this law:  “DOME shall issue a person a medical marijuana card indicating the person is a qualified patient or qualified primary caregiver after: (1) receipt of: (A) a completed application; and (B) a physician recommendation; (2) verification that the physician is a licensed physician; and (3) compliance with any other rule adopted by DOME.”

Why is everyone so excited about this new government agency determining special groups to receive special privileges not allowed to all citizens? Your Indiana Constitution provides: “Section 23. The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

The health and medical needs of the individual require no mandate or government control. Individual life and treatment is a determination to be made by any and all citizens as determined by the terms of the individual. This bill has too many conditions and mandates to be considered a victory of any kind.

Do You Require Permission to Exercise Your Rights?

RESTORATION OF LIMITING POWERS

OF THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION

HB 1143 HB 1144

By Phyllis Klosinski, Brown County, IN

In 2011 Indiana residents were presented with a baby step in the measured restoration of Section 32 of the Indiana Constitution: “The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.” That baby step; Senate Bill 0506 allowing a person to carry a handgun on or about the person’s body generated strong support from individuals despite its limitations, some of which have since been improved.

But for those with a belief in Constitutional limitations on authority I am eager to share proposed bills which should get you up and on your feet; making your voice heard. The inalienable Right to self-protection is in for a real battle this year. I present for your consideration the work of Representative Jim Lucas District 69.

HB 1143: “ Synopsis: Possession of firearms on state property. Prohibits a state agency, including a state supported college or university, from regulating the possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories: (1) on land that is; or (2) in buildings and other structures that are; owned or leased by the state. Provides for certain exceptions. Voids, as of July 1, 2015, any rules or policies enacted or undertaken by a state agency before, on, or after June 30, 2015, concerning possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories on land or in structures owned or leased by the state. Allows a person to bring an action against a state agency if the person is adversely affected by a rule, a measure, an enactment, or a policy of the state agency that violates this law.”

Go back and read that again, grab a highlighter and make your mark.  Does this proposed bill really say what it appears, that state property, including a state supported college or university, will no longer be gun free zones? Yes, it does.

However, you will also notice that pesky, old-government, doublespeak phrase “Provides for certain exceptions.” Now, in reading the Citations affected (and there are many), that catch-all phrase has a way of grating on my weary old nerves. Why? Because from experience I can tell you what the “law” says is often only what the government determines rather than as it is stated in the actual law.

Are frustrations over the loss of accountability for unauthorized “laws” violating the terms of Section 32 finally being reversed?

Why have we, the masters of our government, become so willing to grant exceptions?

Why has it become necessary  to repeal “laws” which have arbitrarily taken from us in violation of Section 25? (Section 25: “No law shall be passed the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.”)

Now Representative Lucas provides the ultimate hammer in the machinery,  HB 1144 – repealing handgun licensing which would repeal many pages of gun laws as well as the income derived from the cost of the mandatory permits.

HB 1144:  “Synopsis: Handgun license repeal. Repeals the law that requires a person to obtain a license to carry a handgun in Indiana; makes conforming amendments.”

Is the state government finally recognizing there are no qualifications, nor any exceptions under Section 32, and that individuals have no obligation to prove they are worthy of exercising their Individual Sovereign Right to defense?

Do you believe every individual has the inalienable Right of self-defense and understand that government has manipulated and derived “Laws” in violation of the explicit terms of Section 25 and Section 32 of the Indiana State Constitution?

If you ever want to try to make a difference now is that time. In just a few minutes you can contact your General Assembly Members and Representative Lucas to express your support. Without individuals this legislation to move Indiana into compliance with the explicit terms of the Constitution will fail.  If not now when?  If not this Right which one?

 

Reference documents

HOUSE BILL No. 1143

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL

Citations Affected: IC 35-31.5-2; IC 35-47.

Synopsis: Possession of firearms on state property. Prohibits a state

agency, including a state supported college or university, from

regulating the possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or

firearm accessories: (1) on land that is; or (2) in buildings and other

structures that are; owned or leased by the state. Provides for certain

exceptions. Voids, as of July 1, 2015, any rules or policies enacted or

undertaken by a state agency before, on, or after June 30, 2015,

concerning possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or

firearm accessories on land or in structures owned or leased by the

state. Allows a person to bring an action against a state agency if the

person is adversely affected by a rule, a measure, an enactment, or a

policy of the state agency that violates this law.

 

HOUSE BILL No. 1144

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL

Citations Affected: IC 5-2-1-9; IC 5-2-8-2; IC 10-13-3-40;

IC 11-9-2-4; IC 11-13-1-3.5; IC 14-16-1-23; IC 21-17-5-6;

IC 21-39-4-7; IC 31-30-1-4; IC 35-33-1-1; IC 35-47; IC 35-50-2-13.

Synopsis: Handgun license repeal. Repeals the law that requires a

person to obtain a license to carry a handgun in Indiana. Makes

conforming amendments.

Where is Phyllis Klosinski?

where_am_i

By: Phyllis Klosinski

Recently We Are Libertarians went live for call-in questions during their weekly podcast. I hope they will continue live call-ins, perhaps on a monthly basis. Although I disappeared from the political scene due to the lack of public engagement I still monitor certain activist posts. Upon receiving notice of the live WAL broadcast I decided to pose a question. As the exchange progressed I ended up being the one questioned.

The core issue was one which many have pondered, especially given recent Government antics. After reading many posts, searching back to the original articles on such issues as the “Shutdown,”  “Affordable Healthcare Act,” “National Defense Authorization Act,” and several other media (force fed) topics I can now give WAL an answer.

The Question: What will it take to bring awareness to the masses and awaken them to the unauthorized extension of Government “Power” at all levels?

The answer now seems obvious. Follow the lead of Government. Take a page from their often used playbook. Make life as uncomfortable as possible for all elected officials. If this is only e-mailing or calling them once each day and expressing your legitimate objections, then do it. Repeat this over and over again. Keep your contacts short to the point of protecting your Individual Sovereign Rights, and be persistent!

Is this a waste of time? No. If the tactics that government employ are irritating to you it will be equally as irritating to the elected officials. But of course the individual is at a disadvantage not having the constant media support. However, the individual now has the net. Many can share their experiences as well as the comments from their officials, and should do so.

Get the word out about why an official does what they please. Do not embellish or speculate, just pass on their actual statements. Others who are web wise can do video and podcasts. Put your talents to good use (and share)! You may not be the main stream media, but at least for now, you have an unrestrained voice and can vent to the world without the need for Government permission. Use the tools you have while you have them!

Now, compare this tactic to the answer from some “activist” groups who would have you vote these officials out of office. Yes we should all exercise our vote, but when the game is stacked and the candidates who intend to comply with their Oath of Office are few one must realize that the ability to impact the Government must come from outside the halls of “power.” The few officials with integrity must have continued support from the individual masses. If officials do not hear from those who oppose what they are doing they will believe we don’t even exist. After all, if any one of their decisions were such a problem, why is no one complaining? This is the consistent reply that I have received for more than 20 years.
So, to We Are Libertarians: How do we “educate” the public? We don’t. The brainwashed line that Government has the “right” to do whatever it wants for our good has been accepted by the majority. We must lead by example; by doing; by allowing the public to hear and view sovereign action in person. The “education” will be passed on through observance of the fight and what is being fought for.

Klosinski: Follow Up – The Angry Doctor

1281379874W60cWp

The Angry Doctor Explained

I have always looked at life from a perspective that the individual has the sole right to exercise dominion over their own life including their health care needs. Neither the masses nor the government have the right to impose on the individual sovereign right to life. Along with my right to individual sovereignty I accept  full responsibility for financial costs associated with my decisions. Because of my personal positions I prefer a life of privacy and seldom venture out in the world unless necessity demands.

Last week on a trip to a medical facility I had an exchange with a medical professional which explains why I am considered by most in my community to be anti-social. My spouse is forced to obtain an expensive test (expensive at least to us, over $4,000.00) to satisfy Department of Transportation Commercial Driver’s License requirements. The Department of Transportation medical review for commercial drivers is required but stricter standards have been mandated for anyone who has had a cardiac event.

This test is done in stages so we were in and out of the waiting room 3 times. There were 18 other individuals awaiting their procedures while a news cast was on with coverage of the Boston bombing. The first set of comments and observations from those in the waiting room never strayed from approval of the way in which Boston handled the response to these “terrorists”, expressing shock and disbelief that this could even happen. After all since  9/11 the government is controlling and stopping “terrorists”.

We were called for the first stage of the test where we were asked the usual medical questions by the test administrator and why we wanted the test. My spouse and I explained that it was a government requirement and not a result of a medical determination from our cardiologist. And that as usual for the past 10 years we would be paying out-of-pocket since insurance would not reimburse. Now she understood the Department of Transportation requirements as she had done tests for this reason many times and she thought that although she was conservative on most issues that these types of medical requirements were necessary to protect society.

She went on to complain that she paid over $600 monthly for family coverage and that this national healthcare was needed. And now she wanted to work less but could not because of this type of necessary expense. Okay, I don’t generally confront ordinary individuals especially when there for a test being administered by this individual, but feeling stressed anyway I all of a sudden found myself asking “Why?”

She said a good example is that society will pay for treatment of a motorcycle accident when an uninsured person comes to the Emergency Room just because society has decided it is the thing to do. Now since she was part of society that paid for this treatment of the uninsured through higher medical cost and insurance rates costing her family their money she has the right to control the reckless behavior of all such individuals. She explained it is a right for society to demand cycle riders wear helmets and other safety gear to provide less chance of injury and less cost to society when they do not pay, just like seat belts and other safety requirements for automobiles. Although she thought car and truck safety did not go as far as she would like to see it. What if someone has insurance and wants to ride without helmet or safety gear I asked? That would be reckless she said and it was their tough luck because society has the right to protect ourselves from the acts of others. Those wanting to do anything risky whether responsible or not just have to be expected to comply or be forced through more laws to protect the greater good after all we are all part of society and compliance is owed. She continued that national healthcare can put a stop to the rising costs by controlling the behavior responsible for the expense. I asked what if people decide not to buy insurance and are forced to pay the fine, they will still have no insurance and the bills may still not be paid. Yeah she thought  that was one of the problems with the plan after all the fine was only $50.00 a year so many without employer insurance coverage might let it go which is when the government has the right to force coverage and charge them. Like I said this was a stressful testing situation and I was not going to go any further. But I have been an activist against “Obamacare” and for Nullification for several years and having read many reports from insurance companies, companies restricting coverage or dropping coverage and some of the Health and Human Services reports I never came across mention of a  fine as low as $50.00. But I could be wrong the programs have so many volumes and agencies involved no one could know or guarantee anything, not even the government. This part of the test was over so we returned to the waiting room.

Several patients had gone and were replaced by newcomers. The same news station and coverage with speculation and what to do to make sure this does not happen again with the usual “terror attack” media spin continued. Perhaps the “right of society”  position explained by the administrator is why none of the 18 individuals I observed  exchanging opinions in the waiting  room during the 3 hours it took for our procedure commented against anything the government did. I listened to comments and the fear that no one would take care of them except the government in these “terrorist” situations as the reason we all need to do what we are told because they know bestAnd they agreed when one stated that Indiana owes us the same response should the “terrorists” strike here. There was no dissension. All thought what the government agents did to apprehend the suspect causing the “ lock-down” of Boston was admirable, heroic and completely within the authority of government. No one saw anything wrong with the tactics towards either the suspect or the citizens. So much for the average individual respecting the individual sovereign rights I have believed were mine as protected by the government limits contained in our Constitutions.

Now sovereignty apparently has been once again redefined this time by the masses of society not as individual inalienable rights but instead as the comprehensive all irresponsible actions controlled absolute right society is owed as a whole, a true Democracy. In a republic form of government individuals have rights to self-determination and to guaranteed protections of those rights which cannot be compromised by the masses for any reason. If what I observed last week is an accurate random sampling of America today I now understand why the Indiana General Assembly leadership refused to bring to the floor the bill which would have nullified the national healthcare acts. They really do represent the people in this democracy.  Government has been handed authority by society to execute control in justifying the loss of any individual responsibility based on reckless behavior and to implement the use of martial law compromising constitutional protections when society needs defense from “terrorists”. We used to be self-reliant capable hands on brave individuals. Where is my America, land of the free and home of the brave?

Klosinski: Sovereignty and an Angry Doctor

angry doctor

For several years I have been fortunate to have opinions published by the Indiana Libertarian Party and now by a non-political group; We Are Libertarians in which I review legislation from a perspective outside of “political experience.” Both of these groups are known to be consisted of individuals at various levels of libertarian beliefs. So when I get out amongst the “others” I generally listen to learn why there is such disconnect between the masses and those supporting Individual Sovereign Rights and strictly limited Constitutional government.

Last week on a trip to a medical facility I had an exchange with a medical professional which explains what the primary issue confronting sovereignty is. We were forced to obtain an expensive test (at least to us of over $4,000.00) to satisfy DOT regulations. When asked by the administrator of the test why we wanted the test it was explained that it was a government requirement and not a medical determination so insurance would not reimburse.

The administrator commented that the cost was over $600 paid for family coverage and that while conservative on issues, this national healthcare was needed. Okay, I don’t generally confront ordinary individuals, especially when there for a test being administered by said individual, but feeling stressed anyway I all of a sudden found myself asking “Why?”

The administrator explained that society will pay for the treatment of a motorcycle accident when an uninsured person comes to the E.R. just because society has decided it is the right thing to do. Now, since this administrator, through higher medical costs to their family will have to pay the bill for the uninsured those responsible who pay for insurance  have a right to control the reckless behavior of the uninsured. I was told it is a right for society to demand that cycle riders wear helmets and other safety gear to provide less chance of injury and less cost to society when they do not pay. What if someone has insurance and wants to ride reckless I asked? His response was, “That is their tough luck. In Society, we have the right to protect ourselves from the acts of others, and those wanting to do anything risky (whether responsible or not) will just have to protect the greater good.

Now SOVEREIGNTY has a new definition, it is not individual rights,  it is comprehensive of all irresponsible actions controlled by the Right of Society as a whole…a true Democracy. Perhaps this is why none of the 18 individuals who saw a Boston clip commented against anything the government did. I listened to the comments but FEAR the projected idea that no one would take care of them other than our government in these situations, so we all need to do what we are told because they know best. All though what the government agents did to apprehend the suspect was admirable, heroic, and completely within the authority of government, no one saw anything wrong with the tactics towards either the suspect or the citizens. So much for the average individual respecting Individual Sovereign Rights as protected by the government limits contained in our Constitutions!

Why expect Indiana to protect the sovereignty of the state against the feds through Nullification? Clearly the masses want total control via government for the good of society.

Klosinski: The Shell Game

images

The Shell Game

An Article V Constitutional Convention has once again become the solution the Indiana General Assembly under the direction of Senate Pro Tem David Long is insisting that it is the only viable option to limiting federal over reach.

I have been asked by WAL to explain why a Constitutional Convention would be bad.  For those of you who do not follow me or are unfamiliar with who I am, I am simply an ordinary individual just like most Americans trying to survive under the ever-increasing unauthorized control of government at all levels.

I cannot speak to you about the legal, technical jargon used to defend or to attack the merits of an Article V Constitutional Convention.  You have literally hundreds of judicial experts, historians, and self-appointed activists who will provide you with so much input that your storage capacity will shut down.  I know, I have tried to review many sources from both sides to present this review.

I have determined the only way I can present my understanding of what an Article V Constitutional Convention would mean to me is to simply apply objective logic supported by recorded actions.

We the people of each state elect people from our state to be members of Congress to represent our state under the Oath of office to uphold the Constitutions.  I say Constitutions because these members  are solely responsible to the people of the state which sends them and first to the Constitution of that state.  How could it be otherwise?  The individual units came first; we were not a whole which then broke into designated sections.  As elected representatives sent by the states to participate in decisions binding on all the states to a Congress of the United States they are bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Article 1 Section 1 “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.   .   .”  Section 8 then specifies what powers the Congress, the representatives from these states may consider for uniform application to all states.  It is easy to understand that no power to enact laws resides within any other federal entity.  And that the composition of the law making body is the people from the states.

Congress, the President and the Judiciary have long ago assumed authority over which there are no Constitutional provisions.  We are now faced with a federal government which dictates to individuals through various federal agencies control over our daily lives impacting everything from our right to self-protection, self-medical determination, what we may legally consume, who has the special privilege of deducting what from their federal income taxes, how our schools must handle education,  how we must conform to environmental standards, what we must subject ourselves to in order to travel, what speed limits we must follow  and who the government will recognize as suitable for us to share our lives with. Why has this happened?  Because we have failed.  Many of those we have entrusted with the protection of our most valuable tangible possession have abdicated their integrity to the voice of the masses despite the existence of a sworn contrary obligation not to do so.

So now it is up to those who remain the object of government control to abolish, rescind, void, nullify, reverse an out of control federal government who is us.

The Indiana General Assembly who is us consists of Indiana resident individuals chosen as members to represent we, the people of Indiana here in Indiana.  These individuals take a solemn Oath of Office to uphold the Constitutions.  Now we have been told by Senator Long, as is probably the rhetoric of the other Members supporting him that by avoiding nullification protection and refusal not to comply with federal mandates we are being protected from expensive litigation and federal challenges we cannot win.

So we the people of Indiana have decided instead of putting an immediate STOP, NO, communication to the federal government we will instead legislate our way out from under unauthorized federal control by establishing through SB 0224:  “Duties of Article V convention delegates”.

“Sec. 1. (a) At the time delegates and alternate delegates are appointed, the general assembly shall adopt a joint resolution to provide instructions to the delegates and alternate delegates regarding the following:
(1) The rules of procedure.
(2) Any other matter relating to the Article V convention that the general assembly considers necessary.
(b) The general assembly may amend the instructions at any time by joint resolution.”

“Sec. 6. A delegate or alternate delegate who knowingly or intentionally votes or attempts to vote outside the scope of:
(1) the instructions established by a joint resolution adopted under section 1 of this chapter; or
(2) the limits placed by the general assembly in a joint resolution that calls for an Article V convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States on the subjects and amendments that may be considered by the Article V convention;
commits a Class D felony.
Chapter 4. Article V Convention Delegate Advisory Group
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, “advisory group” refers to the Article V convention delegate advisory group established by section 2 of this chapter.
Sec. 2. The Article V convention delegate advisory group is established.
Sec. 3. The advisory group consists of the following members:
(1) The chief justice of the supreme court.
(2) The chief judge of the court of appeals.
(3) The judge of the tax court.
Sec. 4. The chief justice of the supreme court is the chair of the advisory group.
Sec. 5. The advisory group shall meet at the call of the chair.
Sec. 6. The advisory group shall establish the policies and procedures that the advisory group determines necessary to carry out this chapter.”

And we have established the criteria for delegate appointment through SB 0225: “Appointment of delegates to Article V convention.  Provides for the appointment of delegates and alternate delegates by the General Assembly to a convention called for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States called for by the states under Article V of the Constitution of the United States. Establishes the qualifications of delegates and alternate delegates.”

So now the General Assembly has legislated itself power to appoint the delegates to this convention, determine the rules and amend instructions, establish criminal punishment for failure to perform and establish an advisory group with the authority to establish policies and procedures necessary to carry out this chapter.     We are assured these delegates will be controlled and nothing will be considered  outside of  SJR 18 :

“A JOINT RESOLUTION requesting Congress to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States concerning limitation of the commerce and taxing powers of Congress.”

SECTION 3. That this application is for a convention limited to considering and proposing amendments on the following topics:
(1) Additional limitation of the power of the Congress to regulate commerce among the several states under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States.
(2) Additional limitation of the power of the Congress to tax under Article I of the Constitution of the United States and under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

“SECTION 4. That this application shall be considered an application for a convention to address each of the subjects stated in SECTION 3 of this resolution. For purposes of determining whether two-thirds (2/3) of the states have applied for a convention addressing any subject, this application is to be aggregated with the applications of any other state legislatures limited to one (1) or more of the subjects stated in SECTION 3 of this resolution.”

So apparently other states can call for a convention and not exactly define the purposes to” Additional limitation of the power of the Congress to regulate commerce among the several states” and “Additional limitation of the power of the Congress to tax under Article I of the Constitution of the United States and under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”  This term “additional limitation” has me puzzled; exactly what limits are now being exercised by the federal government?  (Don’t Laugh)  What “additional limitation” can we place on a Congress and President which they will uphold when they refuse to uphold the limits in place now?  Then why would the Supreme Court not continue recent determinations that acts of Congress are valid  due to the “compelling government interest” such acts serve?

So it appears we are determined to continue down the same path, trust those elected to appoint the delegates who will uphold their sworn Oath.   Is this a risk you are willing to take?  Remember we are still dealing with the same “us” people who have grown to depend on government for an answer for everything; we are no longer self-reliant individuals who can hold firm to our integrity if there is a “group” disagreeing with us, and special interests will still be in the mix, it is our human nature.

Those doing the appointing and determining the limitations are elected, how are those elections returning the “promises” of limited government?  How are those elected upholding their duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitutions their Oath of Office demands?  But of course we must remember that the General Assembly Members do not face a criminal charge should they attempt to “knowingly or intentionally vote” in violation of the Constitutions.  So the general assembly can amend the instructions at any time, and we still do not have the chance for a run-away convention?  What if the Membership of the general assembly changes and thus the direction is altered?

In order for a constitutional convention precisely limited to the purpose of proposing amendments to place additional limits on the commerce and taxing powers of Congress the delegates would have to uphold the precise directives from their respective states, which would need to be identical and unanimous.

Congress which is out of control now would have to perform its duty and suddenly halt all powers currently freely exercised; agencies would be disbanded with thousands of government jobs disappearing.

And the Supreme Court appointed members would have to render findings against the federal government opposition to any amendment limiting Congressional powers.

How is any of this working so far?  The system is broken, and it’s not going to be fixed without action.  Do we want to turn over such powers to an unknown fate?  With the actions of government especially over recent decades can you believe any guarantee that only this will be fixed and you will lose nothing and Congress, the President and the Supreme Court will all enthusiastically perform within their new additional limitations?

Klosinski: Because I Said So

BECAUSE I SAID SO

Most of us have heard this many times. It means there is no further need for explanation and no permission to question simply an absolute declaratory act. Now the government has recalled into use a “sophisticated, legal jargon” way of saying the same thing called “compelling government interest”.

Let us consider the definition of what the government is now using as justification to accommodate unauthorized intrusion into our most sacred sanctuary, the right of privacy over our own physical existence.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Government interest, or significant government interest, or compelling government interest, is a concept in law that allows the government to regulate a given matter. For instance, there has been held to be a compelling government interest in restricting access to unapproved drugs.”

From The free dictionary.com

“Declaratory Act

(1766) Declaration by the British Parliament that accompanied repeal of the Stamp Act. It stated that Parliament’s authority was the same in America as in Britain and asserted Parliament’s authority to make laws binding on the American colonies.”

I have been exposed to a lot of information thanks to the internet with the ability to track down the source and confirm authenticity.  A recent Fox News interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano sent me to anger and frustration which I had learned to control many years ago when I became a full time caregiver for a terminally ill family member.

The recent interview states.   “The Supreme Court is looking at whether police need a warrant before ordering a blood test for someone suspected of drunk driving.

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, for years, courts took the position that you can’t enter someone’s body without a search warrant. Twenty-five states prohibit police from taking blood without a person’s consent or a warrant.

Police argue that such evidence may no longer be available by the time a search warrant is issued.

Hear the judge’s take in the video below.”

foxnewsinsider.com/2013/03/27/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-cops-must-get-a-warrant-prior-testing-blood-of-dui-suspects/

The case before the Supreme Court is significant in maintaining the right to protection against compelling entry into someone’s body without a search warrant obtained through proper process of probable cause.

We have been told that enacting the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the federal Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act will provide health insurance coverage for all.  These acts result in the federal government having a “compelling government interest” in the healthcare of every individual because they have in fact approved what is defined as a declaratory act, acts declared to bind all individuals to healthcare mandates of the government.   We have been told we will not have to change our insurance, that the cost of insurance will be controlled as will medical costs and that a now 906 page bill had to be passed so we would know what is in it.

There is mandatory coverage we now discover, we can keep insurance provided through our employer or purchase our own our or be charged with a tax for non-compliance and refusal to purchase insurance.  How is the penalty calculated for refusal to purchase insurance?  Compliance is mandatory, there is no self-determination.  Suddenly there are wellness standards being implemented by companies to try to hold down the cost of insurance, others have reduced the workforce to fall below the compliance of mandatory provision of insurance.

If the government can determine by “compelling government interest” that a blood test or DNA can be taken without due process based upon probable cause what might the HealthCare Acts determine?

Now I ask that you consider the provisions of Senate Bill 230 which appear to strike down the federal claim of “compelling government interest”.

Chapter 1. Legislative Statements
Sec. 1. The general assembly finds the following:
(1) The people of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes as set forth in the Constitution of the United States and for nothing more.
(2) The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all powers not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves.
Sec. 2. The general assembly finds that the power that the federal government has assumed by enacting the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L.111-148) and the federal Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L.111-152):
(1) is nowhere expressly granted by the Constitution of the United States;
(2) interferes with the right of the people of Indiana to regulate health care as they see fit; and
(3) is inconsistent with the power granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States”

If “compelling government interest” is cited as law of the land through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act what requirements can be demanded from you?  Remember we are already mandated to be penalized for refusing to purchase.

How will government handle disagreement when an individual determines they do not want to abide by wellness directives?

How will government handle disagreement when an individual determines they do not want a medical test?  A specific procedure?  Prescribed medications?  What will the punishment be?  Taxation?  Forced compliance through physical detention until compliance?  Fines?

Ok, now many of you think I have gone off the rails.  I will explain why I have not.  Have any of you heard about Medicare?  As a caregiver to a terminally ill parent I was exposed to the government method of Healthcare under this plan.  The individual paid into the system for decades, and carried additional private insurance from a major company.  Medicare determines what treatments are covered, not the patient.  Medicare determines how much will be paid to a provider, not the provider.  The balance between Medicare allowable payments is what the private insurance picked up but only if it was a treatment Medicare approved. The prescriptions determined by physicians were not covered by Medicare or the private insurance; the “medi-gap” program did not cover the prescriptions either.   Medicare and insurance did pay for a Medicare approved walker.  When the individual could no longer walk a wheelchair was not covered because Medicare bought the walker.   And private insurance only picks up the balance of Medicare approved charges.

The individual was hospitalized many times.  He determined he wanted no extreme measures to continue life and was ready to go on his terms.  Do Not Resuscitate forms were completed and filed; Power of Attorney for medical care was completed and filed.  Hospice forms were completed and filed.   All these documents are government requirements to allow the patient self-determination.

Do you believe with the “compelling government interest” in executing the National Healthcare system that you will retain control over your body?   Perhaps if you choose non-compliance and monetary penalty you will.

What provision exists in the Constitution which provides government with authority to demand or limit certain medical tests on your body?  What provision exists which provides government with the authority to demand you purchase anything?  What will you be mandated to purchase next in the name of a “compelling government interest”?    Even some legislators in Indiana believe the federal government has no such authority and you will be unable to determine your healthcare as you see fit.  Yet here we are Indiana with no protection provided by the state to block implementation because other legislators have determined it is the law of the land and therefore by default confirming there is a “compelling government interest” and validity to these federal declaratory acts. Why?   Is it perhaps because total control by the government over your body is anticipated through the implementation of these federal acts?

The U.S. Constitution and the Indiana Constitution were not written to guarantee the general welfare of the public under the constraint of “compelling government interest”.  They were written to guarantee protection of the inalienable Rights of the Sovereign individual.  If these Rights are indeed protected by these documents and if the powers of government are limited to those within these contracts, how is forced healthcare deemed in the best interest of the general welfare of the public?   How does the National Healthcare system protect the individual from forced government oppression in determining the Right to Sovereignty over our only true possession our physical being?  Much of what you are allowed to put into your body is already controlled by the government even though you are causing no harm to others from your choice.  What is not forbidden is controlled, regulated and taxed in efforts to control consumption.

I have often been told and seen posted to others that those who complain represent only a minute fraction of the population therefore all the rest are in favor of what the government is doing and that disruption to the system is what is causing the harm.  How long will you wait for government to determine what healthcare you or your loved one is entitled to and how you must comply?  Much of what you are allowed to put in your body is already controlled by the government even though you are causing no harm to others from your choice.

“There has been held to be a compelling government interest in restricting access to unapproved drugs”.     Who approves drugs?   Who allows authorized use?   Who determined there to be a “compelling government interest” simply by making an unauthorized declaratory act that there was?   Government!

Klosinski: On Marriage

Is Personal Freedom Derived from the consent of the government under controls of the government defined by Constitutional powers of the government? 

OR

Is Personal Freedom in Indiana an Individual Sovereign Right protected by Constitutional provisions?  

In 2011 I wrote a review published by LPIN about then proposed   HJR-6, stating:  “ If you think Indiana is protecting you consider the language contained in amendments to HJR-6: “The legislature has the power to define marriage and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage” : “Marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall remain permanent until death do they part”.

I have chosen to revisit the Indiana Marriage Amendment because as some may have heard there appears to be a Court ruling in essence determining government can not define marriage.  We shall see what the Court determines.  My point is as has always been what authority does the government including the Courts have in defining and controlling “marriage”?

The Constitutional governmental limits and individual protections are still contained in the Indiana Constitution specifically:

“No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.”

The exclusive authority for Indiana Legislators to pass any “Law” is confined within the terms specified in the document and only those laws which adhere to specified provisions are laws.

“The Indiana Constitution does not contain any authority for the passage of laws which provide government control of marriage. The Amendment adding Section 38 defining marriage in civil law terms will impose unlimited government authority to define condition, limit and control marriage.”

“The Constitution is the sole source of authority, therefore current Indiana Code which defines marriage, prohibitions and any and all requirements, licenses, terms, and conditions are not authorized by any current section of the Constitution. The passage of this “Marriage” Amendment would legalize the aspects of family law which are now not authorized under the same Constitution.”

The attempt to disguise the Marriage Amendment as a vehicle to protect “marriage” dissolves when the individual determines by religion or personal beliefs what constitutes such a union. The coercion of the government to pass under the ethereal veil of “marriage protection” by enticing the public to approve an amendment of “protection” while granting the government control over marriage is inexcusable.  While some of us may not seek a “traditional” lifestyle it is not up to other individuals and certainly not the government to determine who, where, when or how we wish to exercise such an individual private determination. We do not require the Court to determine that marriage is beyond the control of government at all levels.  The U.S. and Indiana Constitutions already do so.

Klosinski: Despite What They Say, SB 400 Is Not About Nullification

When it is a requirement to give words their common ordinary defined meaning?

When is non-compliant interpretation of the technical defined meaning tolerable?

When will you allow your government or others to substitute exact meaning with a “version” of fact?

SB 400 has been purported to be Nullification.  If individuals are to truly exercise Sovereign Individual Rights responsibility for understanding the acts of government depends upon each.

Consider the published digest of introduced SB 400: “Synopsis: Detainment of citizens under federal defense act. Prohibits specified individuals and entities in Indiana from aiding an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a person under a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) or similar law providing for indefinite detention. Makes it a Class A misdemeanor for a federal official to enforce the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA.”

The now amended version SB 400 removes any penalty to a federal official for enforcing indefinite detention provision of NDAA and instead attaches punishment to state actors who reasonably should know their actions violate due process.   “Synopsis: Aid in enforcing unconstitutional laws. Prohibits specified state actors in Indiana from aiding certain United States agencies or other state actors in the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a person lawfully in Indiana under a state or federal law that the state actor knows or reasonably should know violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution or the Due Course of Law Clause of the Indiana Constitution, and prohibits state actors from investigating, prosecuting, or detaining a person lawfully in Indiana under a state or federal law that the state actor knows or reasonably should know violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution or the Due Course of Law Clause of the Indiana Constitution. Makes a knowing or intentional violation a Class A misdemeanor.”

Now perhaps we should consider the technically defined meaning of NULLIFICATION, four are provided each justifying the other.

1.)“Black’s Law Dictionary” 6th ed.  Nullification.   The state or condition of  being void; without legal effect or status.   Also, the act which produces such effect.”

2.)“Web definitions

the states’-rights doctrine that a state can refuse to recognize or to enforce a federal law passed by the United States Congress.wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

3.)“nul·li·fi·ca·tion (nl-f-kshn) n.1.a. The act of nullifying.

b. The state of being nullified.

2. Refusal or failure of a U.S. state to recognize or enforce a federal law within its boundaries.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.”

4.) Merriam-Webster  m-w.com   “Definition of NULLIFICATION

1: the act of nullifying : the state of being nullified

2: the action of a state impeding or attempting to prevent the operation and enforcement within its territory of a law of the United States.”

Enter into the equation HR 1540, aka : ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012’’.  And the infamous Section 1021:” SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the

President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to

the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;

50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces

of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection

(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.”

How does Sec. 1021 NDAA 2012 the “ affirmation of authority of the armed forces of the United States to detain pursuant to the authorization for use of military force become nullified by prohibiting discretionary non-assistance by “state actors”?

Where in either version of SB 400 does Indiana void, nullify, refuse to recognize or to enforce a federal law, impede or attempt to prevent the operation and enforcement of NDAA by the armed forces of the United States?

If the Indiana General Assembly believes the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA denies  Indiana inhabitants due process how is SB 400  resolute protection against enforcement by the armed forces of the United States?

Do individuals believe the armed forces of the United States depends upon the assistance of state actors to carry out orders authorized by the defense department and the provisions of SB 400 will stop a defense department operation?

Perhaps it is time all use technically precise language so all have equal understanding of exactly which constitutional protections of Sovereign Individual Rights are being violated; and so all have equal understanding of the precise meaning of laws enacted by Indiana government to protect those Rights.

The downloaded copy of HR 1540, aka : ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012’’ is 565 pages, the often cited infamous sections  SEC. 1021. “AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE” and  SEC. 1022. “MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS” are only several pages, you may consider reading them in their entirety, I found facts interesting.