Additional Titles









Never Give Up our Electoral College










By J.B. Williams
February 26, 2012

Due to the unconstitutional nature of today’s lawyers, lawmakers, judges, professors and politicians, it has become politically fashionable to proclaim ones constitutional credentials, even among folks who have clearly never read the document.

Many political pundits and politicians have tried to ideologically define what it is to be, or not to be, a constitutionalist, even when they can’t pass the test themselves.

This gives true constitutionalists a unique opportunity to set the record straight today, an opportunity that only exists when people are overtly operating outside of constitutional boundaries. Such a circumstance provides an easy five question test that may deliver more than exposing a lot of faux constitutionalists…

1. Is Barack Hussein Obama II a legitimate resident of the White House based on the
Article II Natural Born Citizen requirement for the offices of President and Vice President?

No, because a Natural Born Citizen of the United States must be the natural born offspring of a Father who was at the time of the child’s birth, a legal citizen of the United States and every member of the U.S. Supreme Court know it. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. Barack Hussein Obama’s natural father was at no time in his life, a legal citizen of the United States. He was at all times, a citizen of Kenya.

Get this one wrong and there is little chance of getting anything else right.

2. Which branch of the federal government was given the most power under the U.S. Constitution?

An argument could be made that Congress holds more power than the judicial or executive branches as congress alone has the power to make law, control the purse strings, override presidential vetoes and provide oversight over both other branches. But technically speaking, none of the three branches was given more powerful than the other; they were just assigned different duties. All three branches of the federal government were designed to be co-equal parts, each providing checks and balances upon the other. Each of the three branches has very limited distinct duties and powers to carry out those constitutionally assigned duties. Only the Legislative branch has the power to create laws. The Judicial branch has the power to interpret and enforce the laws created by congress. The Executive branch is the administrative branch with the most limited scope of duties. None of the three branches has more power than another. The Constitution did not form an Oval Office dictatorship, or a nine member oligarchy of unelected and unaccountable ideologues.


3. Is the final authority in America entrusted to the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, the Judicial branch, State government, Local government or the American people?

According to the U.S. Constitution, the American people are the final authority in the United States. Next to the American people, the government body closest to the people is the more powerful government authority. Local government has the most local power, followed by the State having authority over State issues and last, with the least amount of constitutional power over individual, local and state affairs, is the Federal Government, having authority over only those enumerated duties assigned to it by the people and their States via the U.S. Constitution. The federal government cannot “mandate” anything which is beyond the enumerated scope and powers of its constitutional authority.

4. Did States lose their sovereignty and Tenth Amendment rights during the Civil War, or at any other time in U.S. history?

Of course not, although I have heard numerous alleged “constitutionalist” or “legal authorities” make this silly claim in recent years. Actually, the Supreme Court has tended to uphold the Tenth Amendment far more after the Civil War than before. The U.S. Constitution created the Federal Government to operate at the pleasure of the people and the States. It gave the Federal Government very limited specific duties and the power to carry out those duties and only those duties. The entire Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment, remain just as much in force today as the day they were ratified. It is the right and power of the States to keep the Federal Government operating within constitutional bounds via the Tenth Amendment, without which, there is no constitution and no Federal Government.

5. Does the Federal Supremacy clause protect all possible federal actions?

No, it does not -- it only protects “constitutional” federal actions. "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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Unconstitutional federal acts beyond the enumerated powers, duties, scope and authority granted the federal government by the States; enjoy no such supremacy over anyone or anything. For federal laws to enjoy the protections of the supremacy clause, they must be constitutionally sound laws. This means that the law must have been created by Congress, not a court or the Oval Office.

It must have been created by legitimate legislative process. It must not infringe upon any other constitutional clause or protection in the Bill of Rights; and it must enjoy the support of the majority of the states and the people of the United States in order to comply with the General Welfare clause, which prohibits the federal government from doing anything that is at odds with the general welfare of the States and the people at large. When a dispute arises concerning the balance of powers between a State and the Federal Government, the Constitution gives the U.S. Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear the arguments of the dispute. However, the American people have the final word on what is or is not “constitutional.”

Now, if one cannot answer all five of these questions correctly, they are NOT a “constitutionalist” and they cannot be relied upon as an authority on the Constitution or the law no matter the fancy paper on their wall.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

However, there are two kinds of fake constitutionalists. The kind that cannot answer these five questions correctly, and the kind who can, but won’t take a stand to protect every clause in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as though each is the only clause that matters.

How did you score? Should you be leading American citizens, or should you sit down and shut up, allowing real constitutionalists to lead this country back to greatness?

Shouldn’t every individual seeking public office have to pass this test today? How many 2012 candidates can pass this test? I don’t take any candidate who can’t pass this simple fundamental test seriously, and in my opinion, a candidate who fails this test will fail to help our country too.

� 2012 JB Williams - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. He is also a Founder of Freedom Force USA and a staunch conservative actively engaged in returning the power to the right people in America.

Web site 1:

Web site 2:











Many political pundits and politicians have tried to ideologically define what it is to be, or not to be, a constitutionalist, even when they can’t pass the test themselves.