The Constitution of the United States as a Contract

By: Thomas Wigand | New Zeal

Cross-posted from Bear Witness Central

Author’s Note: This is an abridged version of “The Constitution of the United States of America as a Contract ” – one of the “communiqués” from my book Communiques from the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. This particular communiqué discusses our Constitution from what this writer believes to be a novel perspective – analyzed as a legal contract rather than as a political document – and from that, how there has been a Progressive-driven breach of contract. The original of this communiqué includes some of the “legalese” of contract interpretation principles used in law; here I have mostly excised those and distilled to the essence of the concept. In that sense, you will find this piece not unlike Mark Levin’s new book “Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism” (although my book was released a year before) – I say that not to brag, merely to acknowledge kinship with another who is working to warn Americans about the manifest anti-Americanism of the Progressive division of Collectivism.

The Constitution of the United States of America as a Contract

The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.

George Washington

Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these great and true principles.

Abraham Lincoln

To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race.

Calvin Coolidge

It is submitted to you that we could (and should?) look at the Constitution as equivalent to a legally binding contract between the people of the United States of America as one party to the contract, and the federal government as the other party.

Discussion regarding the Constitution of the United States of America typically revolves around a debate between “strict constructionists” (Conservatives and objective legal scholars) and “living document” proponents (Progressives and agenda-driven “legal scholars”). In the interest of illuminating the fundamental premise of the debate, let’s approach it from a slightly different angle – by applying legal concepts from “contract law.”

Continue reading


National School Walkout: Marxists Rally Thousands Of Students Against Guns And The Constitution

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Today, thousands of students walked out of their classrooms across America to protest against gun violence. They usually did so with the full blessing and encouragement of their teachers. This sprang up after the mass murder in Parkland, Florida last month at a high school by a disgruntled former student who is also a deranged psychopath. 14 students and three staff members were killed in the shooting.

The National School Walkout was organized by the same people who organized the Women’s Marches. Marxists who are against the Constitution and the Second Amendment and think this is the time to take it down. Wealthy leftists including George Soros are funding the movement along with celebrities who have deep, anti-American pockets, such as Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney. According to EMPOWER, the youth branch of the Women’s March, there are more than 3,130 school walkouts scheduled across the country, as NPR’s Adrienne St. Clair reports.

“I’m just mad there’s no action by our government representatives,” Daniel Rogov, a junior in Brooklyn, New York, said today. Which is not true. Many would like to train and arm teachers at schools. They would also like to employ former police and veterans to guard schools. But stripping people of the right to bear arms, simply gives more control to the bad guys and encourages violence. “It’s all thoughts and prayers; it’s all talk,” he told ABC News. “After a gun violence tragedy there’s a speech talking about how we need change but there never is change.” These are the talking points of the radicals and Marxists who have coached and trained these kids into being useful idiots for their political agenda.

The walkout began at 10 a.m. in each time zone across the nation. It was scheduled to last 17 minutes. One minute for each of the victims gunned down in the Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Some schools are expelling kids who are walking out and I agree with them. This should not be allowed.

To the students at Stoneman Douglas, Daniel’s message is, “Keep making your voices heard. While the politicians might stop talking about this, we’re not done.” No, they aren’t and those like Daniel and David Hogg are being used as walking, talking propagandists to abridge our rights and destroy them forever. Over 3,000 walkout events were registered to take part in today’s call on Congress to pass tighter gun control laws, according to ENOUGH National School Walkout, the event organizers. They are taking place in virtually every state – the professional organizers did their job well. Some of the walkouts, especially in California, even turned violent today and this is just the beginning, not the end.

“Remember why we are walking out,” Stoneman Douglas survivor Lauren Hogg wrote on Twitter today. “We are walking out for my friends that passed, all children that have been taken because of gun violence. We are walking out for the empty desks in my classes, and the unsaid goodbyes. This epidemic of School shootings must stop.” No, they are walking out to further a radical anti-gun agenda by Marxists and are too stupid to see it. In Washington, DC, a huge crowd of chanting students gathered in front of the White House. Once the clock struck 10 a.m., the students silently sat down with their backs to the White House. There were also ‘die-ins’ that took place in various locations.

“We just want the White House to hear us,” Abby Silverman of Bethesda, Maryland, told ABC News outside the White House. Leftists are making progress in taking away gun rights from those under 21, even though they serve in the military and these kids are helping them. Kevin Butler told ABC News he came to the White House to “make sure there are stricter gun laws,” and even though the President wasn’t there during the sit-in, Kevin thinks their voices will be heard. Yes, they will… and mainstream America rejects them.

Outside Trump International Hotel in Manhattan, students chanted “Hey, hey, NRA, how many kids did you kill today?” None. They never have, but they do protect and lobby for Second Amendment rights. These kids are being taught that the NRA and anyone who owns a gun or supports gun rights is a murderer. It’s monstrous. Parents should speak with their kids about being used like this.

In Times Square, students protested silently. Women’s March Youth Coordinator Tabitha St. Bernard Jacobs, one of the adults coordinating students in the movement, told ABC News before the event that while the walkout was sparked by the Florida school shooting, the event is about pressuring Congress to act against gun violence overall. They were just waiting for an emergency to trigger them. She said the walkout was a way to shed light on the kind of gun violence that exists not just in schools but every day, like shootings that affect communities of color or devastate cities like Chicago. You know… the city that is led by liberal Marxists and has the strictest gun laws in the nation… that Chicago. It’s so bad there that Navy medics train for combat because it’s as bad or worse than being on the front-lines in Afghanistan.

While many school districts were supportive of the protests, some schools from Pennsylvania to Georgia had reportedly threatened to discipline students participating in walkouts, which I think is very appropriate. In Plainfield, Illinois, where some students had planned to walk out, doing so came with a guideline. Students who wanted to participate in the walkout also had to attend an after-school discussion with state legislators to discuss issues that relate to school violence, like the political process, school safety, gun control and what influences politicians, Plainfield School District Superintendent Lane Abrell told ABC News. A student who walked out but did not attend the discussion with state legislators would get a one-hour detention, Abrell said. At least it’s a start.

Abrell said the walkout “in my opinion … doesn’t really solve the issue,” and the meeting with local legislators is a way for students who are genuinely passionate about the cause to learn how school violence issues can be solved. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said schools could punish students for missing class for walkouts, but the punishment should only be because students missed school and not as a harsher punishment because the students participated in a protest. Dozens of colleges and universities have said they won’t penalize applicants who are peaceful student protesters.

This wasn’t just high schoolers and college students. Many elementary students took part in the walkout as well. The walkouts on Wednesday are among several protests planned for coming weeks. The March for Our Lives rally for school safety is expected to draw hundreds of thousands to the nation’s capital on March 24, its organizers said. And another round of school walkouts is planned for April 20, the 19th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting in Colorado.

Not all students support this and many are walking out under peer pressure. Parents should find out how their children are reacting to this so they don’t become radicalized.


The “Compact” Gimmick to circumvent the Powers granted to Congress by Article V

By: Publius Huldah

The supremacy clause at Article VI, clause 2, US Constitution, says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Two bills, SJR 31 & HJR 49, which purport to provide for the selection and control of “commissioners” to an “interstate convention” for “proposing amendments” to our federal Constitution, have recently been filed in the Virginia General Assembly.  The bills assert that such an “interstate convention” is authorized by Article I, §10, clause 3; the 10th Amendment; and Article V of our Constitution.

As shown below, the bills are unconstitutional because they seek to circumvent Article V, and are not encompassed within Article I, §10, clause 3, or the 10th Amendment.  Under the supremacy clause, they would be struck down.

I. What Article V says about amending our Constitution

Article V says:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing amendments…”

Our existing 27 Amendments were obtained under the first method:  Congress proposed them and sent them to the States for ratification or rejection.

We’ve never had a convention under Article V – they are dangerous!  If Congress calls an Article V convention, our existing Constitution could be replaced with a new Constitution which sets up a completely new structure of government. 1

Nevertheless, the People granted to Congress at Article V the power to “call” a convention; and to the Delegates to the convention, the power to “propose amendments”. 2

Yet the Convention of States Project (COS), in brazen disregard of the plain meaning of Article V, has long insisted that the States “call” the convention; the States propose the amendments for the convention to rubberstamp; and the States will have total control over the Delegates to the convention.

SJR 31 & HJR 49 are an implicit admission that we who oppose an Article V convention have proved our point:  Congress really does “call” the Convention; and pursuant to its grant of power to “call” the convention, Congress really is granted by Article I, §8, last clause, the power to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out the powers granted to Congress by Article V; and the States actually have no power over an Article V convention – except to ask Congress to “call” one. 3

The Congressional Research Service Report dated April 11, 2014 likewise reflects Congress’ clear awareness that it alone has the power to organize and set up an Article V convention. The Report says:

“First, Article V delegates important and exclusive authority over the amendment process to Congress…” [page 4]

“Second . . . Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including . . . (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates; 4 (5) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; . . .” [page 4] [italics added]

And contrary to COS’s previous assurances that the States would have total control over an Article V convention, the CRS Report says on page 27:

“In the final analysis, the question what sort of convention?” is not likely to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and a convention assembles.”

In other words, we’ll have to get a convention before we know what the Delegates are going to do!

II. The new Gimmick to circumvent Congress’ powers under Article V

SJR 31 & HJR 49 make the bizarre claim that Article I, §10, clause 3, which says:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…”

is really talking about an “interstate convention” for the States to meet and “propose amendments” to our Constitution!

First of all, our federal Constitution doesn’t address “interstate conventions”! 5 State and local governments and private organizations may hold nationwide conventions (gatherings) on an endless list of matters: trade shows, book fairs, sports events, high school marching band contests, agricultural fairs, meetings of County Sheriffs, whatever they like!  And they don’t need permission from Congress.

Secondly, a “Compact with another State” within the meaning of Article I, §10, clause 3, is separate, distinct, and totally unrelated to the Article V convention called by Congress for the purpose of addressing our federal Constitution. “Compact”, as used in Article I, §10, clause 3, means binding agreements or contracts between States which deal with state matters. Traditionally, “compacts” have been used to resolve such matters as boundary disputes between States; and may be used to address various other issues between States. 6

Article V governs amendments to our Constitution – not Article I, §10, clause 3!  Virginia may not lawfully set up any gimmick to circumvent the powers granted by Article V to Congress.  And Congress may not lawfully approve a “compact” which violates our Constitution!

Thirdly, SJR 31 & HJR 49 claim the 10th Amendment gives States the power to hold an “interstate convention” to propose amendments to the Constitution.  Rubbish!  The 10th Amendment addresses powers “reserved to the States…or to the people.”  It is inapplicable here because no powers respecting an Article V convention were reserved to the States: The People granted to Congress the power to “call” an Article V convention; and to the Delegates, the power to “propose amendments”.  The only power the States have is to ask Congress to call the convention.

Once the requisite number of States has applied to Congress, it’s out of the States’ hands.  Pursuant to Article I, § 8, last clause; 7 Congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out its power to “call” the convention.  And then, our Fate is in the hands of the Delegates; and they can do whatever they want – as they did in 1787.

III. The new Gimmick attempts to circumvent the Plenipotentiary Powers of the Delegates

to an Article V Convention.

Article V shows on its face that the convention is the deliberative body.  The Delegates hold the Power to “propose amendments”; or, to do what our Framers did at the federal “amendments” convention of 1787 (invoke the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence) and write a new Constitution which creates a new government.

So, while the States are free to propose amendments to their Congressional Delegations [and this is what James Madison advised]; 8 the States have no authority to dictate the amendments to be proposed at the convention called by Congress.

And as shown in “Why states can’t prevent a runaway convention” and “Delegates to an Article V Convention can’t be controlled by state laws!” attempts to control Delegates with “unfaithful delegate” laws are laughably ineffective.

Apparently, the convention lobby  now concedes that “unfaithful delegate” bills won’t work, since with SJR 31 & HJR 49, they attempt to circumvent the plenipotentiary powers held by Delegates to an Article V convention, by fabricating a new kind of convention (meeting) out of  Article I, § 10, clause 3!

IV. The solution is to enforce the Constitution we already have

Americans don‘t know what our Constitution says and don’t care what it says. They want what they want; and elect politicians like themselves. The politicians made a mess. To fix the mess, Americans must read our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and enforce them with their votes and by repudiating unconstitutional federal programs.  State and local governments must enforce our Constitution by renouncing federal funds to implement unconstitutional programs and by nullification. See also James Madison’s specific suggestions on how States & Citizens can resist federal usurpations.

End notes:

1 This is why Brilliant Men (Madison, Hamilton, four US Supreme Court Justices, and other eminent jurists and scholars) have warned against another convention.  And this flyer sets forth the Facts of the federal “amendments convention” of 1787 at which our existing Constitution was drafted to replace our first Constitution (the Articles of Confederation).

2 The issue in U.S. v. Sprague  (1931) was whether the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) should have been ratified by conventions in each State instead of by State Legislatures. The Supreme Court held that Article V “is a grant of authority by the people to Congress” and that the people “deliberately made the grant of power to Congress in respect to the choice of the mode of ratification of amendments.” Accordingly, Congress had authority to select ratification of the proposed 18th Amendment by State Legislatures instead of by conventions in each State.

3 THIS handy chart lists who has the power to do what respecting an Article V convention.

4 Congress is under no obligation to permit States to participate in the Convention.  Congress has the power to appoint its own members, federal judges, or whomever else they want as Delegates!

5 “Convention” has several meanings. It can be a meeting or gathering, such as a national convention of County Court Clerks or architects; or it can refer to a treaty with foreign countries, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions on the laws of war.  The author of SJR 31 & HJR 49 may have fallen victim to the Fallacy of Ambiguity since he slips and slides between the two meanings.  “Compact” in Art. I, §10, cl. 3, means “agreement” or “contract” – not meetings!

6 E.g., States could properly enter into “Compacts”, within the meaning of Art. I, §10, cl. 3, wherein they agree to prohibit waste being discharged into a River shared by them; or respecting the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the River.  Even though the federal government has no delegated authority to deal directly with such issues; the requirement of Consent by Congress to such Compacts is proper because States situated above or below the proposed dam could be affected by the dam.

Neither the Federalist Papers nor Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 set forth what our Framers meant by “compacts” at Art. I, §10, cl.3.  Here are two secondary sources: The Evolving Use and the Changing Role of Interstate Compacts: A practitioner’s guide, by Caroline N. Broun & Michael L. Buenger (see pages 1-9 for the historical basis of “interstate compacts”).  See also Justice Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833), Book 3, Ch. 35, §§ 1395-1403.

7 Former law professor and pro-convention operative Rob Natelson’s statements to the contrary are untrue.  See “Rob Natelson perverts the Necessary and Proper Clause and thinks in circles”.

8 E.g., Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville (pages 297-301) at the end of Madison’s point 2 [and then read Madison’s point 3!]


Restoring Something Beautiful

By: T.F. Stern | Self-Educated American

We’re in the process of going through items left after my parents died.  They had an old Steeple Clock on their mantle over a fireplace that at one time had been in my grandparent’s apartment.  It didn’t work; but was too beautiful to toss in the trash and so it remained on their mantle over a fireplace that also wasn’t used.

It sat in our U-haul storage unit until this past November when we cleaned everything out to avoid having to pay anymore rent.  The clock didn’t work; but just looking at it took me on a time traveler’s trip back to when I was a young boy visiting my grandparents.

I’d spend the night on a small sofa listening and observing from my vantage point.  They’d leave the window of their small apartment open as they had no air conditioning and a gentle breeze keep the apartment moderately comfortable.

On the half hour their clock would let go a single chimed note while on the hour that same note would repeat until the indicated hour was matched.  It wasn’t a fancy chime; yet eloquent in its somber trembling.  My memory was doing its best to recall the tone that had been silenced when the inner workings had become worn.

I took the clock in for repairs and asked what it would cost to have it brought back to life.  The repairman carefully examined the old clock, admiring the craftsmanship while at the same time pointing out parts which needed replacement.

“Leave it with me any you can have it back in a few weeks.”  He went on to explain how this particular clock might be worth something to a collector.   I agreed to have it repaired in spite of realizing how much the bill would be.

Yesterday we picked the clock up and drove back to our house in the country where it was placed on the hutch, the very same hutch that had once been in my grandparent’s apartment.  Some things are worth repairing; this clock was one of them.

But that’s not why I’m writing today, at least not the main reason.

I look around and see what has happened to my country.  The thought occurred to me that it’s much like that old Steeple Clock that seemed to have outlived its usefulness.  At one time it was a beautiful instrument admired and adored; but over time and through neglect had stopped providing what it was designed to do.

This past week someone left a comment on a public forum, a comment which bothered me then; and still does.  It indicated a cancer has metastasized within our society to the point of destroying the very foundations.  Quoted as written:

“There is no such thing as “god-given” rights. Rights are those aspects of mutual respect and cooperation that the collective agrees to confer on each other, as codified in the Constitution. As for “socialist sh**holes”, socialism is the natural end result of the ongoing evolutionary imperative for humans to thrive collectively rather than attempting to do so individually. It’s just how people work.”

The magnificent workings of our nation no longer shine as brightly as they once did: worn to the point of becoming inoperable, at least that’s what some would say.  Our constitutional republic isn’t ticking strongly, if at all.  There are far too many who would be satisfied to toss it away in favor of one more to their liking, one that didn’t require as much upkeep.

The upkeep I refer to can be identified as self discipline, obedience to eternal laws and principle which shaped our nation from its infancy and at the top of that list, faith in God.  Our founders were aware of the need to be ever mindful of our Creator, the Hand of the Lord or, as often was recorded, Divine Providence as they expressed gratitude for what was given.

You aren’t foolish enough to think this nation just happened out of the blue are you? Well, apparently many of my fellow citizens haven’t got a clue.

Let’s remember, let us all remember… this land we call America was held in reserve for those who would serve Him and individual rights come from God.  The alternative is that rights are no different than entitlements dispensed from government.  If the latter is true then rights can be taken away as easily as they were given depending on who is in power.

Our constitutional republic is the prize sought after by the entire world.  For some it’s a goal worthy of anything to become part of or to emulate; for others it’s an obstacle to be destroyed, dealt with in order to bring about a totalitarian socialist Utopian collective which would remove individual liberty.

It would be difficult, even foolhardy to ignore the similarities between what the scriptures have to say…

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”—Jesus, from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:14-16.

… and a quote by Ronald Reagan.

“America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”

America, the nation our founders helped bring about, that America will take quite a bit of effort to restore.  We’ve let it become run down, nearly silenced over the past several years.  But something that beautiful is worth restoring.


The Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments and Joanna Martin’s Selective View of History

*** NoisyRoom.net is posting this to air both sides of the debate. It should be noted that we do not condone personal attacks while debating the relevant facts. We support vigorous free debate on constitutional issues. Both sides will be allowed to share their views and our readers can decide for themselves whose logic is more reasoned and based on fact concerning the subject matter. It is worthy of note that in debate, one attacks the argument not the arguer. Attacks on the arguer belong to a Logical Fallacy called “ad hominem.”

By: Gary Porter and David Dietrich

Joanna Martin, aka “Publius Huldah,” has a selective view of history. Once again, in her article, “COS Project’s ‘Simulated Convention’ Dog and Pony Show and What They Did There,” she attempts to use it to scare us with the “horrors” of Article V.

Martin writes: “…for the past 100 years, the federal and state governments and the American People have ignored our Constitution.”

In the face of such a broadly cast net, we agree, certainly as regards the American people, but to respond directly: so what? What does Ms. Martin intend to do about this? What is the constitutional remedy she offers? Moreover, how can We the People return our nation to “Original Intent”?[1] While we don’t doubt Martin’s patriotism, she has a jaundiced view of what is a clearly constitutional method of repairing a damaged document. The Declaration is very clear on this subject. So is Article V. Instead of helping to restore the Constitution’s “chains,” she is “chained” to the status quo.

Martin Writes: “…Delegates would have the right, as recognized in the 2nd paragraph of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off the Constitution we have and write a new Constitution which creates a new government.”

Really? Let’s review: “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”  As Jefferson implies, the Right of the People is in effect at ALL times.  But, this broader right has nothing to do with a Convention for proposing Amendments.  Convention delegates are most certainly NOT delegated the right to do anything they want, much less “write a new Constitution, which creates a new government.”   A plain reading of the Article V text makes this clear to any fourth grader.  Once again, only “the People” may delegate the right to transform their government.  Since an Article V Convention for proposing Amendments has only one delegated goal – to propose Amendments, any fear of something else emanating is misguided.

To be sure, anyone, any group, even Congress could draft a new Constitution and post it on the internet for all Americans to consider. Mr. Rexford G. Tugwell, a fellow at the Left-leaning “Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions,”[2] drafted a looney “Constitution for the New-States of America” in 1974, well before the internet was even a gleam in Al Gore’s eye. Mr. Tugwell died five years later and someone eventually posted his “masterpiece” on the internet. Read the document. Why Martin and Company believe Article V convention delegates, lacking any authority to do so, are going to feel empowered to take this or any other “constitution” and put it into effect “on behalf of the American people,” is simply beyond comprehension. Somehow she has convinced herself (if she is to be believed) that this is going to happen. And the American people are apparently going to sit back and let this happen? Astounding! If you believe that, we have a bridge we’d like you to look at. An Article V Convention attempting to impose a new Constitution on America is a flight of fantasy!

Continue reading


The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster

By Publius Huldah

“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.” Daniel Webster, 4th of July Oration, 1802.

We live in a time of constitutional illiteracy.  A recent survey found that only 26% of Americans can name the three branches of the federal government. Yet every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows all about how to amend a document he never bothered to read.  Our lawyers were indoctrinated in law school with the Supreme Court’s perversions of our Constitution, and know nothing of our actual Constitution. We should read and learn the Constitution we have before we tinker with it or jump on the bandwagon of tinkerers.  Otherwise, we destroy the “fair and lovely fabric” we were given.


Under our Constitution, Congress makes the laws, and the President enforces them. The powers of “making” and “enforcing” are separated so that the President and Congress may act as a “check” on each other.

But 100 years ago, Congress starting passing laws they had no constitutional authority to make, and delegated the details to be written in by agencies within the Executive Branch. This process continued and resulted in the Code of Federal Regulations which contains the huge body of regulations made by agencies within the Executive Branch. And thus we got the unconstitutional administrative law state under which every aspect of our lives is being increasingly regulated and controlled. 1

And now appear those who, under the promise of limiting the regulatory administrative law state, propose an Amendment to our Constitution which would legalize it!

1. Only the Legislative Branch has Constitutional Authority to make Laws

Article I of our Constitution created the Legislative Branch of the federal government.  Section 1 thereunder says:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

That means what it says.  Only Congress may make laws [and laws are restricted to the powers granted in the Constitution]; and laws may be made only by elected Senators and Representatives in Congress.

2. The Executive Branch Enforces the Laws Congress makes

Article II of our Constitution created the Executive Branch. A primary function of that branch is to enforce laws passed by the Legislative Branch. Since the President’s Oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, he is obligated to refuse to enforce any Act of Congress which is unconstitutional.

3. Rulemaking by Agencies in the Executive Branch

But during the early 1900s, Congress began to make laws outside the scope of the handful of powers granted to the federal government, and delegated the details to be written by unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Branch.

This is now routine practice: Congress passes an overall statutory framework, and bureaucrats in the Executive Agencies write the rules to flesh it out. The Agencies themselves are often unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers granted in the Constitution. 2

To illustrate:  Congress passed – without reading – the over 2,000-page Obamacare act. Then it went to the Department of Health & Human Services (an unconstitutional federal agency) to have tens of thousands of additional pages of regulations added to fill out the framework.

This unconstitutional practice resulted in the infamous Code of Federal Regulations. The Code is so huge it’s difficult to impossible to keep up with the rules and revisions which pretend to regulate one’s trade, business, or profession.

The administrative law state and agency rules are unconstitutional!  They violate Art. I, § 1, US Constitution, and are outside the scope of powers granted to the federal government.

So, what’s the solution?

4. The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment

Roman Buhler of the “The Madison Coalition” says we should support the “Regulation Freedom” Amendment to the US Constitution:

“Whenever one quarter of the Members of the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate transmit to the President their written declaration of opposition to a proposed federal regulation, it shall require a majority vote of the House and Senate to adopt that regulation.”

Do you see the trap the amendment sets?  It would legalize rulemaking by federal agencies in the Executive Branch and would thus supersede Article I, §1 of our Constitution!  And the entire existing Code of Federal Regulations and the rulemaking process itself – which now violate the Constitution – would be made constitutional!

The amendment would thus bring about a fundamental transformation of our Constitution from one where Laws are made by elected Representatives on only a handful of enumerated powers; to the administrative law state where laws are made by unelected, nameless, faceless bureaucrats in the Executive Branch (the same branch that accuses, prosecutes, and judges violations).  The executive agencies would make whatever Rules they please—and they would stand unless Congress, which often doesn’t even read the laws they pass, overrules it.

It protects 2nd Amendment Rights?

In an email dated November 10, 2017, Mr. Buhler said his proposed amendment “protects 2nd Amendment Rights”.

But his amendment does the opposite – it legalizes all the existing federal regulations which restrict firearms and ammunition. Look at Title 27, Chapter II, Subchapter B, Parts 478 and 479 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  As of now, every rule in Parts 478 & 479 is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated in the Constitution; violates Article I, §1; and violates the 2nd Amendment. But with Buhler’s proposed amendment, all those rules would become constitutional!

Furthermore, the amendment would provide constitutional authority for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to make whatever future rules they want – and they would all be constitutional unless Congress objects and votes against them.

So the amendment vastly increases the powers of the federal government by legalizing what is now grotesquely unconstitutional.

5. Daniel Webster’s Warning

We are in a state of moral, religious, intellectual, and psychological decline. We don’t know what our Constitution says, and didn’t bother to find out. We elected people who didn’t know and didn’t care – and they made a mess.

To fix the mess, we must learn and enforce the Constitution we have and elect people who know it and obey it.  We can gradually downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers. And as to Buhler’s proposed amendment, heed Daniel Webster’s warning:

“…If an angel should be winged from Heaven, on an errand of mercy to our country, the first accents that would glow on his lips would be, Beware! Be cautious! You have everything to lose; you have nothing to gain. We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people.  Miracles do not cluster.  That which has happened but once in six thousand years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once gone, might leave a void, to be filled, for ages, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism…”Webster’s Oration.


1 Administrative law judges in Executive Branch agencies decide whether violations of agency rules have occurred. The agencies thus act as lawmaker, prosecutor, and judge!  Isaiah 33:22 says God is our Judge, Law-giver, and King. Because humans are corrupt, our Framers separated the functions into three separate branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.  And since the Oath of Office requires persons within each branch to obey the Constitution – not the other brancheseach branch has a “check” on the other branches.

2 Where’s the constitutional authority for the Dept. of Education?  Energy? Agriculture?   Housing & Urban Development?  Labor?  Environmental Protection?  etc., etc., etc.?

3 Our existing, but long ignored, Constitution limits federal power to the enumerated powers.  But the proposed amendment would supersede that limitation because it permits the exercise of federal power on whatever the Executive Agencies make rules about!


Transgenders in the Military – Who Decides: Congress, the President, or Federal Judges?

By: Publius Huldah

In a case now pending before the US District Court for the District of Columbia,1 the trial judge recently granted a preliminary injunction which purports to temporarily stop the Trump Administration from banning so-called “transgender” persons from serving in the Military.

But we will look at the real issue:  Does the Judicial Branch of the federal government have constitutional authority to require the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government to permit transgender persons to serve in the Military?

Instead of going along with what everybody says – or expounding on one’s personal views on the topic –let us consult and obey the US Constitution:

  • Article I, Section 8, clauses 11 – 13, delegate to Congress the powers to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; raise and support Armies; and to provide and maintain a Navy.
  • Article I, Section 8, clause 14, delegates to Congress the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”
  • Article II, Section 2, clause 1, says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States…”

In Federalist Paper No 69 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton says:

“…The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. … his authority … would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy…”

So! All the powers over the Military which have been delegated by the Constitution are vested in the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government.

The Judicial Branch has no role to play in the organizing and operation of the Military Forces.

Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, clauses 11-14, Congress alone has the delegated authority to decide who may serve in the Military. If Congress issues Rules banning transgender persons from serving, then it is the President’s job, as Commander in Chief, to enforce those rules.

Accordingly, instead of participating in the litigation before the federal district court, the Trump Administration should instruct the federal judge on the long-forgotten concept of “Separation of Powers” and advise the court, “You have no jurisdiction over the Military – we will not participate.

1. Military courts and military lawyers in a nutshell

The Judicial Branch of the federal government was created by Article III, US Constitution.  That Article created the supreme Court, and authorized Congress to ordain and establish, from time to time, such inferior courts as needed.  Pursuant to that authority, Congress has established 94 federal district courts (where most federal trials are conducted), and 13 US Circuit Courts of Appeals.

The US Military has its own court system which is not part of the Judicial Branch of the federal government.  The military courts are “Article I Courts” created by Congress in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).2  They consist of trial courts where courts-martial are conducted; each Branch of Service has its own “Court of Criminal Appeals”; and the “US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces” hears appeals from the Services’ Courts of Criminal Appeals.

And when military commanders need legal advice, they get it from their own Service lawyers (this is one of the duties of lawyers in the Judge Advocate Generals’ Corps).

The Judicial Branch of the federal government has no constitutional authority over the US Military.

2. Federalist Paper No. 80 and the meaning of “arising under”

Some may assert that the Judicial Branch has authority to determine who may serve in the Military because Article III, Section 2, clause 1 says,

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution and the Laws of the United States…”

But they would be wrong.  In Federalist No. 80, Alexander Hamilton explains the jurisdiction of the courts created by Article III: In the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 13th paragraphs, he shows that the purpose of the language quoted just above is to authorize the Judicial Branch to enforce the Constitutionnot re-write it; and to enforce constitutional federal lawsnot re-write them.

Furthermore, in Federalist No. 81 (8th para), Hamilton addresses judicial encroachments on legislative authority, and reminds us that such encroachments need never be a problem because of the courts’ “total incapacity to support its usurpations by force”; and because Congress may protect the Country from usurping federal judges by impeaching, trying, convicting, and removing them from office.

3. Political Questions

Accordingly, when a power is vested by the Constitution in the Legislative or Executive Branches [the “political branches”] the federal courts [the “legal branch”] have traditionally refused to interfere.

In Martin v. Mott, 25 US 19 (1827), the Supreme Court considered the Militia Act of 1795 which authorized the President to call forth the militia when he judged it necessary to repel an invasion.3  The Court pointed out that the power had been confided [entrusted] by Congress to the President, and

“We are all of opinion, that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.”

In Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253 (1829), which involved a dispute between the United States and Spain over territory, the Court held that once those departments [Executive and Legislative Branches] “which are entrusted with the foreign intercourse of the nation” have asserted rights of dominion over territory, “it is not in its own courts that this construction is to be denied”.  “A question … respecting the boundaries of nations, is … more a political than a legal question; and … the courts of every country must respect the pronounced will of the legislature.”

Likewise, the power to determine who may serve in the Military has been delegated to the Legislative Branch of the federal government i.e., Congress. The Judicial Branch may not substitute its judgment for the Will of the Legislative Branch; and if it attempts to do so, Congress should employ the remedies suggested by Hamilton in Federalist No. 81.

4. The President’s “check” on the federal courts

Finally, let’s look at Federalist No. 78 (6th para) where Hamilton – unlike the pundits of today – tells us the Truth about the powers of federal courts:

“…The judiciary … has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” [boldface mine; caps are Hamilton’s] 4

An informed President who is a manly man will ignore ultra vires orders of the Judicial Branch.

5. Conclusion

Let us put the federal courts in their proper place!  Congress and the President have the recognized power to refuse to go along with unconstitutional or ultra vires acts of the Judicial Branch; and their Oaths of office require them to do so. Congress also has the power to rid us of usurping federal judges via the impeachment process.


1 The US District Court for the District of Columbia was established by Congress pursuant to Art. III, §1, US Constitution.

2 Congress’ authority to create the Military Courts is derived from Art. I, §8, cl. 14, US Constitution.

3 Article I, §8, clause 15, delegates to Congress the power, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

4 I trust you see why Hamilton is viciously smeared. The relentless attacks on our Framers have a purpose: Take them down – and our Foundation is destroyed.  Hamilton wrote most of The Federalist Papers, which Madison and Jefferson recognized as the best evidence of the genuine meaning of our Constitution.  What effect do these constant attacks on Hamilton have on peoples’ respect for The Federalist Papers?  Beware of false friends who undermine our Foundation; and of jealous men whose claim to fame is that they attack Hamilton.


Freedom’s Safest Place | The Ultimate Insult


Dana Loesch

We are witnesses to the most ruthless attack on a president and the people who voted for him, and the free system that allowed it to happen, in American history. From the highest levels of government, to their media, universities and billionaires, their hateful defiance of his legitimacy is an insult to each of us.

But the ultimate insult is that they think we’re so stupid that we’ll let them get away with it. These saboteurs, slashing away with their leaks and sneers, their phony accusations and gagging sanctimony, drive their daggers through the heart of our future, poisoning our belief that honest custody of our institutions will ever again be possible.

So they can then build their utopia from the ashes of what they burned down. No, their fate will be failure and they will perish in the political flames of their own fires.

We are the National Rifle Association of America. And we are Freedom’s Safest Place.


Convention of States Adopts Newspeak to Sell the Con-Con

By Judi Caler

Judi Caler lives in California and is Article V Issues Director for Eagle Forum of CA. She is passionate about holding our public servants accountable to their oath to support the U.S. Constitution.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”  –Joseph Goebbels


In the novel, “1984,” George Orwell’s unsettling prophecy of a totalitarian society, Newspeak was the official language of Oceania. It was devised to limit freedom of thought. New words were invented, undesirable words eliminated, and the remaining words redefined or limited in scope to further the Party’s ideology.  If something can’t be said, it can’t be thought, making a diverging thought unthinkable.

So too, the Convention of States Project (COS) uses Newspeak to manipulate people into believing that the convention provided for by Article V of our Constitution is really a “convention of the states” which is controlled from start to finish by State Legislatures.

“Convention of the States” v. “Constitutional Convention”

On September 24-25, 2011, radical leftist professor Larry Lessig who has ties to George Soros, and salesman Mark Meckler who now heads COS, co-hosted Conference on the Constitutional Convention at Harvard.  That conference kicked off the current push for the Left and the phony Right to work together to promote an Article V Convention.

But the Convention Lobby soon realized that conservatives had been schooled over previous decades by the John Birch Society and Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum to recoil from an Article V convention, also known as a “constitutional convention” or “con-con,” because it could run amok and replace our existing Constitution.

And despite their attempt to win conservative support by focusing state Article V convention applications on supposedly “conservative” issues like a “balanced budget amendment” or “fiscal restraints,” convention proponents were met with resistance from those who understood that State Legislatures have no power to limit the scope of a convention to specific topics or amendments.1 The same ploy was tried and failed in the 1970s and 1980s for the same reason.2

What to do?

Shamelessly, Mark Meckler and his legal operatives turned to Newspeak. Attorney Rob Natelson, the Newspeak guru of the convention lobby, announced in a speech on September 16, 2010, that he was “…going to put our concepts on ‘reset’”:

“I hope this is the last time I’ll say [the words] ‘constitutional convention’…I often have made the mistake of calling it that, but it is a serious mistake because it causes people to misunderstand what the convention is all about. The Constitution gives the convention a specific name—a convention for proposing amendments—and I think we should call it that or perhaps an Article V convention, an amendments convention, or a convention of the states.3

Thereafter, they adopted the term, “convention of the states”; defined it as a convention totally controlled by State Legislators; and claimed that a “convention of states” was the same as an “Article V convention,” and different from a “constitutional convention” or a “con-con.”

As Meckler spins the narrative:

 “A constitutional [or plenipotentiary] convention has only been held once in the entire history of the country set in 1787…they can draft a new constitution from scratch…

“[But] This is an ‘Article V Convention of States for proposing amendments’…They do not have supreme authority. They do not have the authority to redraft the entire [Constitution]…So, an ‘Article V Convention of States for proposing amendments’ is a convention that is limited by the instructions from the States as to what they can deal with.” 4

Common Sense

In Oldspeak, i.e. the real world of English grammar and common sense, “constitutional convention” and “Article V convention” are synonymous. Any convention dealing with drafting or amending a constitution is a constitutional convention.” Also, any convention provided for in a constitution is, by definition, a “constitutional convention.”

But in the Orwellian world of COS Newspeak, a “convention of the statescan’t run away, by definition!

That the Newspeak definition for “convention of the statesdoesn’t exist in our founding documents, doesn’t matter to the convention lobby. It serves to deceive legislators into thinking that an “Article V convention,” unlike a “constitutional convention,” can’t run away; and secures legislators’ YES votes on con-con applications.

Recently in Michigan, 32 Representatives responded to a National Association of Gun Rights survey, saying they were opposed to an Article V Convention, most likely because they were concerned they would lose the Second Amendment at a con-con—a very real possibility. After being exposed to COS Newspeak, some of those same legislators decided they could simultaneously support COS legislation asking Congress to call a “convention of the states”!

“It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’” –1984, Part I, Chapter 3

Limit” in Newspeak means “expand,” as shown by amendments proposed by COS supporters. Our Constitution already limits the federal government to the enumerated powers. The amendments proposed by Mark Levin, Michael Farris, and the COS simulated convention would legalize powers the federal government has already usurped and strip States of existing powers and rights.

COS recently promoted itself as “the largest Article V grassroots organization…nationwide.” So, a “grassroots” organization in COS Newspeak is one bankrolled with millions of dollars from mega-billionaires! 5


Another word trick in COS Newspeak would replace “Delegate” with Commissioner.”   A “delegate” is a representative who has power; but a “commissioner” is a person charged to manage some particular subject-matter and is controlled by his superiors.  Accordingly, Meckler told Senators at a February 25, 2015 Nebraska committee hearing that they’ll direct their “commissioners” by text messaging during the convention because legally, commissioners are equivalent to hired insurance agents! 6

What COS Fails to Mention

COS operatives and their coterie of attorneys fail to mention that we have another founding document in addition to the Constitution. That document is the Declaration of Independence which preceded the Constitution.

“It would have been quite impossible to render [the Declaration of Independence] into Newspeak while keeping to the sense of the original. The nearest one could come to doing so would be …the single word CRIMETHINK.” –1984, Appendix

The Declaration of Independence, paragraph 2, expresses our founding principles which are above the Constitution: that all men are created equal; that our Rights come from God; that the purpose of government is to secure those Rights; and that, if the government fails to secure our Rights, We the People have the Right “to alter or to abolish” our government and set up a new one.

The convention is the highest form of government, having more power than State Legislatures and Congress put together. So even though the Framers met in convention in 1787 for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation (AOC),” they had the inherent and legal right, as expressed by the Declaration of Independence, to write a new Constitution which created a new government. Moreover, they set a precedent by making the new Constitution easier to ratify than amendments to the AOC.

And with the words, “We the People…,” they reaffirmed in our Constitution the founding principles written eleven years earlier. In fact, in Federalist 40, Madison justified writing the new Constitution, which was to replace the AOC, by citing the Declaration of Independence.7


Newspeak, invented by the convention lobby, is believed and repeated in State Capitols across America by too many Republican legislators who have set logic and truth aside to buy the false narrative. They believe that the solution to an overreaching federal government that has ignored our Constitution is to change our Constitution! And that an Article V convention called by Congress can’t possibly run away because it is just a “convention of the states” in Newspeak!

And shame on the heavily bankrolled, self-professed “conservatives” at COS along with their team of attorneys, “constitutional scholars,” and lobbyists who risk our Constitution by selling a bill of goods to well-meaning and unsuspecting legislators. The same propaganda is used to fool ordinary citizens whom COS claims to “represent.”

A runaway convention can’t be prevented with Newspeak! Americans must educate themselves on this deception and be vigilant.  Understand the real remedies our Framers said we must use to prevent federal overreach.  Once a convention is called, it will be too late to stop a new Constitution with an easier mode of ratification from being imposed.  Our existing Constitution and our Liberty hang in the balance.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free…it expects what never was and never will be.” –Thomas Jefferson to C. Yancey, 1816

End Notes

1 See Judge Van Sickle’s Article, Part IV, https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/van-sickle03192017.pdf

2Constitutional Convention called Redux,” Part 4, Kelleigh Nelson 3-22-2013, para 9:  https://freedomoutpost.com/constitutional-convention-call-redux-rexford-g-tugwell-the-newstates-constitution/

3The State-Application-and-Convention Method Of Amending The Constitution: The Founding Era Vision, Robert G. Natelson, See I (pp 9, 10).  

4 Red Eye Radio, scroll to 7/6/17, Part 2 @ 51:25: http://www.redeyeradioshow.com/on-demand/

5 While we are unable to determine all the sources of the funding for Meckler’s group; the ultimate source of much of the funding for the push for an Article V convention is the Koch Brothers of Texas.

6Nebraska Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, 2-25-2015, Transcript pp. 47, 52:  http://www.legislature.ne.gov/FloorDocs/104/PDF/Transcripts/Government/2015-02-25.pdf

7 http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed40.htm, para 15


Al-Azhar Deep State Strikes At Egypt’s Constitutional Free Speech

By: Dr. Ashraf Ramelah | Voice of the Copts

In June this year, Justices Alito and Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in their separate opinions for Matal v. Tam that there is no “hate speech” exception to the first amendment of the constitution. In other words, “hate speech” is free speech. In that same month, Egypt’s parliament found a new hate speech bill placed before them for review. It is likely Egypt’s legislators will not take their lead from the United States but follow the footsteps of Germany, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, France and Denmark, to turn the bill entitled, “Combating Hatred and Violence” into law. The vote is scheduled to take place in the near future.

However, before any vote takes place, the Egyptian parliamentarians must address the origin (the writers) of the introduced bill. The bill — which has 16 articles in three sections — was not written by any member of the elected body but by an outside entity. Committing an unconstitutional and illegal action, the Al-Azhar Institute wrote and submitted to parliament the proposed “hatred” bill. Egypt’s parliament is currently aiding and abetting the illegality by considering the proposed bill. Next, they will buckle under the same pressure to rubber stamp it. Just watch.

To be clear, Al- Azhar Institute has no representation, honorary or otherwise, in the Egyptian parliament. This was enumerated a long time ago when Nasser allowed the Islamic religious institute to expand its teachings to the university level in science and technology. And before doing so, Nasser established Law No. 103 in 1961. Still current, Law No. 103 restricts Al- Azhar Institute’s role to a religious/cultural one (meaning not political) and defines it as “the renewal of Islamic culture, removing abstractions and impurities from it.”

A hate speech law crafted by Al- Azhar may, in its own view, be very effective in “renewing” Islamic culture for, rest assured, it will favor Islam above the others. The language of the drafted bill is generic and abstract with the intent to exact that favor. Vagueness is subject to interpretation by those in charge. For example, the proposed bill states it is, “Protecting the community from attempts to indoctrinate false concepts that may emerge among its members and affect the facts of their religion in a manner that incites hatred.” “Community” is not defined, and this makes non-Muslim segments jittery. Are the indoctrinated “false concepts” affecting the “facts of their religion” pertaining to truths spoken about Islam and Sharia? — Probably.

At a time when Al- Azhar Islamists are under much criticism, the ambiguity of the bill, if passed, will muzzle thinkers and intellectuals and stifle expression more so than now. With this maneuver, Al- Azhar ar shows that its aim is to govern behavior and gain more power over personal lives.

Nothing short of a move to reverse Egypt’s constitution regarding free speech, Article 4 of Al- Azhar’s “Combating Hatred and Violence” bill incorporates an end to any opposition to the proposed bill once made into law and, in this case gets very specific: “It’s not permitted to invoke freedom of opinion and expression, criticism, freedom of information, publication or creativity against any statement or action involving anything contrary to the provisions of this law.” To the contrary, Article 65 of the current 2014 Constitution states that “Freedom of opinion is guaranteed and everyone has the right to express his or her opinion by speech, writing, photography or other means of expression and publication.” The two are at odds.

A thousand years old, Al- Azhar has an institutional memory of the freedoms’ and rights’ environment for centuries in Egypt prior to Nasser’s decision to nationalize personal property and pour the proceeds into the coffers of Al-Ahzar. Tipping the scales in this way set up society for the battle against freedoms and human rights. In response to the negative popular reaction in May 1879 to the emerging abuses of political and religious powers, Egypt’s 1923 Constitution came about 45 years later. It stated that the Egyptian parliament is the only “legislative authority” and that no religious institution can have that same role — referring to Al- Azhar Institute and the Coptic Orthodox Pope. Although the 1923 Constitution is now expunged, this point, fortunately, carried over to the current 2014 Constitution.

With its aggressive overreach (an unsolicited and illegally proposed “hate” bill) to increase the presence of Islam throughout a diverse population (secularists, liberals, atheists, Christians of various denominations and Muslims), the Al- Azhar deep state unveiled its true intentions. Instead of reviewing its own internal policies regarding religious teachings and preaching, which would alleviate oppression in Egypt and around the world as well as pressure on the devout, it rides the trend rising in Europe to suppress free speech and ingrain 7th century doctrine.

The powerful Al- Azhar deep state is shoring up its position to hold and penetrate fundamentalism in many ways, building momentum over time. After rejecting Al-Sisi’s plea for reform of Islamic doctrine and ignoring the possibility of school textbooks revision, Al- Azhar Institute created the kiosk project to disseminate religious edits (“fatwas”). Shortly after, Al- Azhar vocalized its contempt for Tunisia’s modernization of ancient religious traditions, and most recently remained silent on the Egyptian state’s campaign against female genital mutilation (FGM). Furthermore, Al- Azhar has never condemned ISIS or any act of Muslim terrorism against Christians in or outside of Egypt.