Guys, we’re live Rod part saying untold history. And it’s going to be a little bit different today because I’m driving, I’m on the road to Phoenix, and I have Jeff Calhoun with me here. And Jeff is your, what’s your title there, Jeff with Tesla specifics? Yeah, my title officially is I am a co founder, regional coordinator and the national spokesman. Okay, now where, where does David fit into this? Because I actually had David Vinegar on my show.

It’s been probably eight months ago, roughly. And where does he fit into this? David is the founder of America of Trust and Tactical Civics is the action mission of America. Again, trust. And so he is the founder and the chief content creator. He’s written most of the books that we use to teach people american civics, constitutional civics. Okay. But you’re kind of doing a lot of the stuff that he was doing for a while.

You kind of assumed that role then. Yes. Yeah. He’s, he’s pretty much kind of handing off to me requests for interviews and things like that and. Okay. And he’s, he’s also, I’m slowly beginning to create more and more content for our training center, platform articles and such. And we’re working pretty closely together and increasingly so for future future publications, books, materials that teach our, our fundamental principles. Copy that.

Okay. Well, I know, you know, you and I had a nice conversation when we spoke about two weeks ago, and, you know, I was very impressed with your knowledge. And I know you and I are on the same page on a multitude of areas. I have full confidence in your ability to pick up the ball and run. Kind of what I had envisioned for this kind of like a refresher course and just a presentation of tactical civics to my audience that has grown.

The last, what I had him on before, I want to say my audience was at about, probably five to 6000. Right now I’m at about almost 14 and a half thousand. So I’ve gained quite a, quite a bit of new subscribers since then. And I’m sure that there’s a lot of people out there who don’t know what tactical civics is, and there’s people who probably have heard it and it’s been a while.

They don’t, and they just need a refresher course. Yeah. And then I have, then I have, you know, obviously a lot of things have changed in our world in the last eight months. A lot of things have changed in our world in the last day, much less six months. Eight months. So I’ll probably have some, some new questions, you know, as we continue on. So that said, brother, the floor is yours, man.

Kind of walk us through the let. I’ll turn it over to you. Well, thanks, Ron. Yeah, we had a great conversation a few weeks back, and I’ve been looking forward to us having an opportunity to talk. And, you know, so we’ll just start with kind of helping people get a basic understanding of what tax specifics is, what it is we’re trying to do. And, you know, you said a lot of things have changed in the past six to eight months, but a lot of things have stayed the same in the past six to eight months.

And the things that have stayed the same in the past eight months is we have a federal government that is probably. That’s operating in probably the most corrupt city state. It rivals the most corrupt city state in the history of human civilization. Washington, DC is run by organized crime. Our congress is utterly corrupted. And that’s not saying that every member of Congress is a criminal and is utterly corrupted and compromised.

I think there’s a fair number that are. But the system itself, the way a day at the office in the United States Congress and in our federal government is corrupt and criminogenic. And that’s a word that we use in tactical civics a lot. It’s more than just criminal. It’s criminogenic, and it reproduces itself. And what we’ve seen happen over the past several generations, as we’ve seen the federal government reproduce criminal execution of government.

And they’ve reproduced that at the state level, which has then reproduced itself at the local, county, and municipal level of government. And so it’s criminogenic. It reproduces itself. Can I ask a quick question? The way I see it is that, you know, the founding fathers, when they created the constitution, you know, they created with strong local government. And the, basically, the principles of the way that our system was supposed to function was from the local level up, and that the local level was the most powerful.

The. And then as you got up into the states, the states have less power than the. Put it this way, the county government had more power than the state government. The state government had more power than the federal government. It was a complete, you know, the bottom levels had more power because it was, think locally, act locally, and you had local. It was, it was more. It was focused more on local stuff because the founding fathers did not want population centers to control the, you know, the country.

Well, some of them did. Some of the founders were in favor. Yes, they did. You know, and you know, so I think. I think the most helpful way to think about it, Ron, is, is not look at power and locations of power in respect of government, okay? Because the one thing that the founders accomplished, after all was said and done, what the founders accomplished was the recognition and the perpetual establishment of a system of government where the people themselves are the reservoirs of sovereignty, power.

And so when you talk about bodies or spheres of government, whether it be federal, state, or local, what you’re talking about is you’re talking about subordinate governments at every level, whether it’s federal, whether it’s state, or whether it’s local. In every aspect and in every context of government, our governments are subordinate to the people. And what. And the fundamental problem in America is that we have abdicated our sovereign beauty and our sovereign authority as the collective sovereign in America, as we the people.

And this is just kind of. And this is important for people to understand. And, you know, Ron, I hear people all the time talk about first. I hear people all the time complain about the abuses and the overreach of government. Whether it be federal, state, or local, it happens at every level. Overreach of government. I hear people complain about it. I hear people express a tremendous amount of frustration and also a fair amount of hopelessness, because people understand, I think, at kind of an intuitive level, that America is not supposed to operate and it’s not supposed to look the way that it looks right now.

They understand that, but they don’t know. They don’t quite know why it’s not supposed to operate this way. Because most Americans, the overwhelming majority of Americans, are ignorant of what our system of government actually is. They couldn’t articulate it. They couldn’t explain the basics of what american constitutional civics is. And civics is simply. Civics is a word that simply means who’s boss. And in our system of government, we the people are the boss.

And we make it clear in the first three words of the constitution, we the people, in order to. And then we list seven things that we want to make happen that has to do with domestic tranquility, that has to do with justice and defense, and, you know, seven things. And then it finishes the preamble with do establish and ordain this constitution. Okay? So we establish that we are the executors, the creators of government, not just of a document, because the document is what gave life to our free branches of government.

The constitution we did, we didn’t have a proper legislature. We had a congress in the articles of Confederation. And it was dysfunctional. And it was free, it was falling apart, and it was weak and it was deficient, and everybody knew it. The anti federalists, you know, had a principled stand about sovereignty, and they resisted, you know, the new and novel ideas around constitutional government and a strong federal government.

But our strong federal government did not exist until the people made the decision to give birth to it. And so what we have to. The first thing we have to understand as members of we, the people in America is that we occupy the highest office. We are the originators and creators of government. And we stipulate in our constitution that all powers not granted to the federal government return respectively to the states and to the people.

So, as Madison described it, the powers of the federal government are few and limited and clearly, clearly defined. But the powers that return to the people are many and virtually unlimited. And so that’s the first thing that we have to recognize, is that when we talk about government at any level, we’re talking about a government that is subordinate to the people. We’re the sovereigns. And so where do we get that idea? Like, is that something that tactical civics is making up? Is it something that, you know, we’re trying to lay claim to a power that doesn’t belong to us? Well, no, because John Jay, in one of the first landmark Supreme Court decisions called Chisholm versus Georgia, one that one that, you know, legal scholars don’t like to talk about and you don’t hear mentioned much, that’s because of the principle that it established.

And John Jay said in that decision, he said that at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved onto the people. What sovereignty was he talking about? Well, we were british colonies. We were subject to the sovereignty of the king in parliament. They shared sovereignty. That was something that had evolved in the evolution of english common law going back to 947 AD. When you first see the beginnings of common law and of the people having some degree of power and some degree of inalienable rights, you begin to see that, you know, 800 years prior to our constitution and through the evolution of english common law, when you get to the charter of liberties, when you get to the Magna Carta, you start seeing.

And a lot of this run was the result of the anglo world in Great Britain and surrounding areas becoming christian. And what happened as a result of that is, prior to the christianization of England, there was this idea in civil law that called rex lex, which meant the king is the law. So the word of the king is the law. He’s the ultimate sovereign. And whatever the king says, that’s the law.

Well, the biblical principle is the reverse of that. The biblical principle that came with, you know, the enlightenment of Christianity was that, no, the law makes the king. And where does the law come from? Law comes from God. God vests law, absolutely. He vests law in the people and then gives the people the responsibility of establishing just governments. And so in England, what the result of that was that it was acknowledged that the king was created by the law, not the other way around.

And so in the dooms of Ethelred, this goes back to 947. The Danes had come into England, had quickly kind of taken over. King Ethelred fled to the north. But within a short period of time after that happened, the danish king died, and the people of England drove the Danes out and kind of reclaimed their land. And they decided that they wanted to bring King ethelred back because he was pretty much, for the most part, a good king.

And so they sent word and they had him come back, but they had stipulations. And they said, okay, we’re going to place you as king. We’re going to allow you to be our king, but we have some conditions. And so that was the beginning of the people establishing that the law governed both the king and the people. And over time, you saw sovereignty be shared between the king and parliament.

It was a shared sovereignty. Well, when you get to the colonies in America, they were abusing that sovereignty. They were disregarding rights, they were disregarding established law and what they called the customary constitution, because it wasn’t an explicit, beginning to end constitution like what we have in America. They called it the customary constitution, but it was common law, constitutional government, where the sovereignty was shared between the king and parliament.

And you had this permanent house of Lords in parliament, you know, where once you were in the House of Lords, you were always in the House of Lords. And so it was. But parliament, you know, was equal to the king, theoretically. So at the revolution, what happened is things got to a point where the colonists threw off the sovereignty of England and declared their independence. And so John Jay says in this decision, Chisholm versus Georgia, he says at the revolution, that sovereignty that once rested in the king and parliament, of which into which the colonists were subject to that sovereignty, devolved on to the people themselves.

And that’s where sovereignty began. That’s where. And that’s where sovereign power, the reservoir sovereign power, was in the people themselves. And then he said, he made another statement that is really important. And it was kind of a technical explanation of how this sovereignty functioned. And he called the people, he said, the people are joint tenants in the sovereignty. And that was technical language. It meant that you had to step forward as a member of we the people and assume the duties requisite to a sovereign.

You know, sovereignty is something that comes with responsibility. It comes with duty, it comes with obligations to be a sovereign. And so John Jay says in this decision that the people are joint tenants in the sovereignty. Joint tenancy requires that all of the owners in this joint tenancy be active together and in agreement making the decisions that are necessary for the good of whatever it is that they own together.

In our case, it was, we owned our government. The government was a government that we created. And so we’re the sovereigns over the federal government. At the revolution, the people, by their sovereign will, created sovereign states. And you can read this. This language appears in every state constitution, and out here. I’ll read it, because I don’t want to miss some of the really clear and explicit language. And again, you hear this in every state constitution, and there’s a clause in our constitution that this ties to, and that’s article four, section four of the Constitution.

And in that clause, basically what the people decided is we obligated the union, the United States. We say in article four, section four of the Constitution, that the United States guarantees to each state in the union. So that means all of us together guarantee to each of us separately a republican form of government. So what. What did we mean by that? Like, what? What? When we said that we guarantee that all of us together, guaranteed to each of us separately, a republican form of government, what were we talking about? Well, if you look at what the founders were pointing to and what they were making reference to, one of the primary kind of models that they had and that they hearkened to was this little republic up in the northeast called the Vermont Republic.

The Vermont Republic was the first independent republic that, you know, once we declared our independence in 1776, Vermont became a constitutional republic. They were the first state. Of course, they weren’t a state at the time. They were an independent republic, and they abolished slavery. They were the first one in America to do that. And listen to their. Listen to their constitution. Listen to how they describe what a republican form of government looks like.

Here it is in section four of the Vermont Republic that the people of this state have the soul. Okay? Soul. That means they’re the only ones that have it. The people have the soul and exclusive and inherent right of governing, okay? And they have that same sole exclusive and inherent right of regulating the internal police of the same. So they establish right there that first of all, they have the right of governing, of as a people, of establishing government, describing what the rules of government are going to be.

And then they say that they also have the right of regulating the internal plan of the government. That was section four. Now section five, listen to this. And this language that I’m getting ready to read. It shows up in every state constitution, in the Kentucky constitution. One of our members from Georgia was asking some questions. I went to the Georgia constitution, showed them. Here’s what the language is.

This is important, something that we got to understand. We’ve got to fully understand this and what the implications of it are. Listen to this. That all power being originally inherent in and consequently derived from the people. Therefore, all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants and at all times accountable to them. Period. That is the bedrock understanding of what a republican form of government is.

And that is that the offices and branches, the people that occupy those offices are subordinate. They are the subjects. The people are the sovereigns. And they. And those subjects, which are the men and women that occupy the offices of government. The elected offices of government, or appointments that have been appointed by the elected offices of government. They are subject to the people, subordinate to the people at all times.

There’s not a moment, there’s not a moment in a day, in a year from now and until glory that. That the government is not subordinate to the people. Listen to this. Section six. That government is or ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family or sentiment, who are a heart only of that community.

And that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public will. That’s the fundamental framework and understanding and operative principles that determine what a republican form of government is. And what the founders meant when they said that what the people. When the people said, we guarantee to every state in the union, all of us together, guarantee to each of us separately, a republican form of government.

That’s what they were thinking about every state constitution that existed at that time and every state constitution that was written and established, since by the people of each state, the people of each sovereign state, articulated those basic principles, that all power is inherent in the people and consequently derived from the people. And that the. And that the. The officers of government are their servants and trustees and are at all times accountable to them and that the people are always in a position of sovereign power, of supervision, of superintendents over government.

Now, that one understanding is something that we have lost in America, we’re ignorant of. We can say, we can use the words, well, the people, you know, this is a government of the government of the people we’re a member of. We, the people. The people, you know, have the power. We can say that. But what we don’t understand, Ron, is we don’t understand how that sovereign power is given active and functional and effective expression.

That’s what we don’t understand. We’ve. I’d agree with that. We’ve lost that understanding completely. And, sir? Me? Okay. Yeah, I can, I was, there was a bunch of noise going on there for a while. It sounded like you. I apologize. We’re getting dragged, you know, getting dragged behind to pull your way up and get back in behind the wheel without further. My phone overheated. I was the most bizarre thing.

It was like my phone that said my temperature on my phone was too hot and it, like, killed out. I’m great. So anyway, so anyway, yeah, it was bizarre. I didn’t expect that. So anyway, I’m, I just kind of pulled off on them sitting in the shade someplace. So I want to just, I want to be, I want this to be a good program. So I want to ask a question.

Yeah. And I, because you’ve been, you’ve been laying out all the stuff about how the government is really subordinate to the people and that, you know, we, the people are the, you know, the Declaration of Independence, which I believe gets far too little gloss, if you will, and understanding by. I almost look at the Declaration of Independence as a, as it is on par, if not even more important than the constitution, because what it does is it declares who we are as a people.

More. More of like the idea of who we are as opposed to the, you know, who has what powers and where. It basically identifies, you know, we as Americans. We are, we are sovereign people. And if we have certain rights, that no matter who is governing us, we have the right to overthrow it if they become tyrannical. Yeah, well, let me, let me point out something, Ron, that’s important distinction.

The Declaration of Independence is organic law. And it is absolutely an important part. And really began if we were climbing Mount Everest. There’s a process in that impossible climb where you hit the last run before you reach the summit. And that’s a pivotal moment that climbers of Mount Everest is that last run, that last turn as they gain the summit, the Declaration of Independence was that for America, it was the last turn where the people ascended to the summit of english common law and the unique american expression of it.

And while, and here’s something that we talk about, and this is key, I mean, this is important, the Declaration of Independence was primarily a grievance that laid out violations of the customary constitution of England that the king and parliament were violating. So it was a document that was making an argument about the sovereignty of a constitution and that everyone, the king, parliament and the people were all bound to acknowledge its tenets and its established functions.

And so the Declaration of independence, in declaring independence from the crown, it appealed to rights. But here’s where we gained the summit. And you see the summit in the form of all the state constitutions and that language that I just read, where that all power is inherent in the people and derived from the people. So we’re no longer as members of the collective sovereign in America, as members of we the people.

And it’s only the responsible members that can lay claim to that. You don’t get to be a member, a part of a sovereign, sitting on your brains eating Doritos, watching reruns of Mickey Mouse or whatever. The difference between the Declaration of independence and where we are now is that the Declaration of Independence was an appeal to fundamental rights. But now we don’t talk about rights in tactical civics.

We talk about sovereign duty and sovereign authority because we stipulate authority to ourselves. We the people stipulate authority to ourselves. And it is the fact that we don’t understand what our authority is that has caused us to relinquish our rights and to even allow our rights to be negotiable, as if we were subjects. As if the situation had flipped to pre colonial times where the king and the parliament were the sovereigns and the people were subject to the king in the parliament, and their rights were, you know, were handed to them by their sovereign.

Well, that changed with. With our constitution and. And with the respective state constitutions. We’re no longer subjects who are appealing to a government for the recognition or granting of rights. We are sovereigns who are acting in our authority, or that’s what we’re supposed to be. But we’ve forgotten how to do it. We used to know how to do it. Founding generation understood that the people were in a position of sovereign authority and could act on that authority.

And so we’ve forgotten that. And if we don’t, if we don’t relearn unlearn all the lies we’ve been told and all of the false ideas that, you know, you talk to most people today, Ron, about what our system of government is, and you’ll hear words like separation of powers and checks and balances. And usually when you hear people talk about separation of powers and checks and balances, what they have in mind is a system of government that is self correcting, that kind of operates within itself and on its own, and the people are moved as far out of the picture as possible.

And so the result of that has been this delusion that exists in America, that we only have two avenues to give expression to our sovereign voice, and that is in voting booths on election day. I mean, majority of Americans and the majority of those who occupy elected office believe that. That’s it. That’s where we express our sovereignty, is in the voting booth. And once we do that, we give our sovereignty away.

We hand it over to our elected servants and they rule. They’re our rulers from that point on. And if we don’t like how they’re ruling, then we just have to wait until election, vote them out. And that is not what our system of government is. The other delusion that we have is that the only other place where we can give voice and take action respective to our sovereign power is in courtrooms that, well, we can sue the government, we can sue our state governments, or we can sue the federal government.

We think that those are the only two realms where we can take action on constitutional matters. And we also have been deluded into thinking or deceived into thinking that when it comes to questions about the constitutionality of any act of Congress, that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter, the final word. Once the Supreme Court makes a decision on constitutionality, that’s it. Well, that’s a lie. That’s not true.

We, the people are the final word on the constitutionality of any act of Congress, not the Supreme Court. We gave the Supreme Court specific duty. We gave them the job of, you know, basically deciding in disputes. And we describe what those disputes are and who and what. I’m curious what you froze up on me. I don’t know if you can hear me, and I can only guess. Maybe what you’re going to ask, and maybe you’re going to ask what is the means? What are the ways? Where is the vehicle where the people can actually take action and act in their sovereign capacity? And that’s what we’re trying to teach people in tactical civics is that we’ve got three things that we have to address in America that have led us to this rampant corruption and criminality in our federal government.

And the first reason is that, and this is one that we’re unapologetic about and one that we challenge people with. And that is that the first reason, and it’s really where all the other reasons kind of spring from, is that in America over the past several generations, we have absolutely turned our backs on God. And we’ve decided that we don’t need the wisdom of God, that we don’t need the wisdom that only comes from God.

And we’ve exchanged the glory of God for the glory of man and of the creations of man. We’ve exchanged the glory of the creator for the glory of the creature. And we’re reeling in the consequences of that right now. We’re not made, we’re not created, we’re not designed. We’re not fashioned in a way where we operate independent or even able to operate independently of our creator, God. And so we’re calling people to, you do whatever business you have to do with God.

But we desperately need to recognize that the center of our problems right now, the very core of our problems, is that we’ve turned our backs on God. The second thing, and this is everything I’ve been talking about up to this point about the sovereign power of the people, is that nobody is enforcing the Constitution. There’s no enforcement. And, you know, the funny thing about criminals is that they, they never arrest themselves because criminality, criminals act in their own self interest.

They act for their own benefit. That’s true. That’s true. And so if they’re able to continue criminal behavior and benefiting from that behavior, why would you stop? You don’t just go turn yourself in, say, okay, we’ve been violating the constitution for the past several generations and doing it every day. And we know we’re doing it, but we don’t really care because we think that, you know, the way things are going out actually pretty good because our, our net worth is quadrupled, you know, after only a few years in office.

And we kind of like the arrangement right now. So I think we’ll just keep doing it. So, you know, so then the question is, whose job is it to enforce the constitution? That’s the big question. Because the Constitution is our highest law. And when you break a law, that’s called a crime. And we’ve, we’ve observed, we watch it. It used to be. I mean, I remember as a young adult that the corruption, the corruption in government and in DC was almost a late night by line in this, you know, in the stand up monologues that, you know, these late night comedians would do, we just kind of laughed it off.

They’re corrupt, you know. And so the question is if our elected servants are committing crimes against our constitution by usurping it, by knowingly undermining it and violating it, who enforces it? Who, who calls them to account and says, no, you don’t, you’re going to have to answer now for knowingly violating our highest law. Whose job is that? Are we going to set up? Yeah, if you don’t mind, my phone’s acting up.

So. Yeah, I asked a question a minute ago, and when I asked, I don’t know if you answered it or not, but I, my phone killed, my phone died. Froze up. Right when you were getting ready, you said what? Yeah. So my question was the, you talked about the supreme Court and they, what would, you know? They were there to be the arbiter. Who is the supreme court to be the arbiter of, like, what, who, when they, when they arbit.

Arbitrate disputes? Who are, who are they supposed to arbitrate disputes? Whose disputes were they supposed to arbitrate? Yeah, it’s, well, it’s, I’ll just go. We’ll read it right out of our, right out of our highest law. It’s in section, in section three of the constitution where we establish the judiciary. So we say that the judicial power of the United States, and again, that is the judicial power of this federal government that we created for external purposes.

Like we created a federal government to make decisions and to assume responsibilities that affected all of us, that affected all the states. So things like treaties, things like declaring war. And we laid out in article one, section 817, jobs that we gave Congress to do 17 clear jobs. And then we gave the executive a job of making treaties that, you know, with the advice and consent of Congress, of appointing justices, of being the commander in chief of our armed forces and of the militia, whatever called into service of the union.

So we lay out all these duties and then we created a judiciary that is going to be the judicial power of this entity, of the federal government that we created for these specific jobs. And there are very few, they’re clearly defined and clearly limited. So the Supreme Court, judicial power shall be vested in one supreme court. And then this is key. And in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordained and established.

Let me hit the pause button. All of our federal courts in our system of american government at the top are the sovereign, the collective sovereign, which is we, the people. We’re at the top. We hold the highest office. We’re above legislatures, presidents, and judges. Below the people are our state grand juries, state militias. So those are our bodies of the people, our grand juries and our militias. And they are law enforcement bodies.

They are the people’s law enforcement, and they are attached to the government in specific ways. In the case of the grand jury, the grand jury’s only attachment to government is that the local court, the county court or district court. However, you know, a region is structured within a state that they have a constituting role to play, not a power, not an authority, a role of impaneling a grand jury.

Once a grand jury is empaneled, it operates independently with sovereign authority. And there’s virtually no limit to the scope of inquiry of a grand jury. And there’s virtually no threshold for what can trigger an investigation. A grand jury, which is a body of the people, can initiate investigations based on suspicion of a criminal violation of the law, particularly a suspicion that an elected servant, be it a judge, a prosecutor, a sheriff, or a state legislator or executive, is, is violating the law.

That grand jury can initiate an investigation into that merely on the suspicion. Also, and this was in Justice Anton Scalia’s decision in us versus Williams in 1992. He lays all this out, gives a great overview of the history and tradition of grand jury and our pre constitutional grand jury, the primordial institution that he called it. And he said that a grand jury can initiate an investigation merely for the assurance that a law is not being violated.

So we, the people, are at the top. Then we have our state militia, our state grand juries, and then our state courts. Okay? And our state legislatures are beneath that. State legislatures are beneath our state grand juries and our state militia. The legislature is beneath that. And then below that are. So we’re, we’re the payors, and then our payees are all of these divisions of government, the federal.

So, so below. So above the line you have we, the people, and our state grand juries and, and state militias, our state courts. And then below the line, you have our state government. They’re subordinate to the people. The, the grand jury militia belong to the people. They are the people. The grand jury is the people. The militia is the people. They’re not elected. They’re not agents of government.

They are the people. So that’s where the line goes. And then below that are our offices of government. And the federal courts are a creature of our creature so we created Congress. We created the House of representatives in the Senate. They are creations of we, the people, who are the sovereign executors and ordainers of our constitution. We created the Congress, and Congress creates the federal courts, and they can disband federal courts.

We gave them that authority and that. And delegated that duty to them. So the federal courts are two rungs down the ladder in terms of our system of government, of who is the seat of authority? The judges. So again, so the question remains, when the courts. When the federal courts are being the arbiter of whatever, who are they arbitrary. Who are they supposed to arbiter? What are they supposed to arbiter? Here it is.

So the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court power will extend all cases on law and equity arising under this constitution. So any cases that arise under the constitution, they hear those cases, the laws of the United States, which are the laws that Congress makes in pursuance of the constitution, treaties. So the Supreme Court will hear cases related to treaties that we make or which shall be made under their authority, to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

So cases that have to do with crimes committed at sea, to controversies in which the United States shall be party to controversies between two or more states. I was looking for right there. So that’s what I was looking for. So this. So the. So the. The supreme Court is supposed to. Is supposed to be the arbiter of disagreements between states, and it is not supposed to be. And it is not supposed to be there to tell states what to do.

No. So, so I am a big. You know, you are not going to find a. A more stern advocate of firearms ownership. Okay. You. I am absolutely a huge believer in the fact that. That we have a right to defend ourselves. I look at all law legisl. All laws that are created at the federal level that are. That restrict firearm ownership are 100% unconstitutional because the constitution was not written as a supreme law for the.

Each individual state. The constitution was written as a restriction of the federal government of what they could and could not do it in it. Well, let’s qualify that, though. Let’s qualify that because. Okay, so, you know, we did say in article six of the constitution that this constitution and treaties made here. I’ll just. Well, I was. I was. Let me finish my. Let me finish my statement, because I may.

I may be answering, maybe addressing what you’re going to. What I think you’re going to talk about. We enumerated certain things that the federal. That the federal government was going to be there to do. And then we reached, then we said everything else, you can’t do it. It’s not necessarily, the constitution is not a permission of the federal government. It is more a restriction of all the things the federal government can’t do.

And it’s a very limited thing that it can do. Yeah. Yeah. You know, basically, we came together as the people and we delegated specific jobs for the federal government to do. Correct. And, and what we make clear is that only when we make this clear in amendment ten and also in amendment nine. And the founders understood this, they talked about it. One of the arguments against the bill of rights was, why restrict, why declare that the government shall not abridge a right that it was not given any power to abridge in the constitution? Because they understood that if they weren’t given the power in the constitution, then they didn’t have the power.

And so for that reason, and that’s why, you know, there was an argument about the Bill of rights saying, we’re entering into, you know, there’s a slippery slope here because partly what creating a bill of rights in these amendments, the constitution does is it, it can potentially open the door to our rights being negotiable because they’re, you know, part of the constitution and the language of those rights can be used.

And so that’s why it was, you know, like Alexander Hamilton said, and I’m no fan of Alexander Hamilton by any. You, you and I. You and I are in the same team. Yeah, but even Alexander Hamilton understood. He said, we say that, you know, Congress shall not restrict the freedom of the press. Why are we saying Congress shall not restrict a freedom when they were given no authority to restrict it? They weren’t given that authority.

So why do we tell them they don’t have that authority when it’s clear they don’t have it? Because it wasn’t given to them. Right. And so even Hamilton understood, yes, that. That in the Constitution, a power not given is a power that doesn’t exist. Right. And so, and I, when you get to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has the power to settle disputes between states over particular issues.

It also has the power to decide in disputes that arise out of the constitution or the laws made in pursuance thereof or in treaties made or which shall be made. But listen to this. This is an important piece of, first, let’s, because I wanted to just mention this, that we do say in article six, section two, that the 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. Okay, so it’s a supreme law of land. And we. We made. We gave certain powers and certain authority to the federal government. Like, we gave Congress the authority to declare war, for instance, and. And constantly. And alternatively, we forbid the states from declaring war. Correct.

And so in that respect, the Constitution is a law governing the states, telling the states what it cannot do, right? So it says, states, you cannot declare war. And also states, you cannot make treaties with foreign nations, like just. And states, you cannot make special agreements with other states and alliances with other states, like a special, you know, tariff agreement with another between two states. Can’t do that.

So, you know, so we did say, okay, these are some. These are some powers, because that was one of the deficiencies of the articles of Confederation, because our economy was absolutely amazing mess and laws governing commerce. We told the states, you can only. You can’t coin money. You can only use gold and silver for the payment of debts. That’s one we tend, intend to return to in tactical civics.

And so we gave the Supreme Court, you know, the job of settling disputes. But when push comes to shove, the voice of the people is a voice that has greater power with broader scope than anything that the Supreme Court says. The Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court makes a decision, they’re typically one of the things that the Supreme Court is always keeping in mind is the issue of jurisdiction.

And the Supreme Court’s very reluctant in any case to tell a state what it can and can’t do. So that’s been something that the Supreme Court has been fairly consistent with, you know, throughout its. Throughout its life, is not telling the states what they can or can’t do. The other thing is that the Supreme Court decides in certain. On certain matters that arise out of the Constitution, but.

But they are our creature. We created the Supreme Court in the constitution. So when it comes to the authority and the sovereignty, the people’s voice and the people’s sovereign power extends beyond that of the Supreme Court. There’s a great book written by a guy who was the former dean of Stanford School of Law. He. He clerked under Justice William Brennan in the Supreme Court. He taught at University of Chicago School of Law.

And he was a. He had a high, high credentials and pedigree in the legal scholarship, and, you know, was dean of Stanford School of Law. He wrote a book called the People themselves. Popular constitutionalism and judicial reviews names Larry Kramer and Dean Kramer makes an argument. His entire thesis in this book is fundamentally that the people themselves are the final word on constitutionality of any act of Congress.

And it got him blackballed from the whole circle of legal scholarship. He got blackballed. But this was his argument. And he makes this argument with remarkable precision, and it’s compelling and it’s hard on its face. And when you just simply look at what his argument is and what he brings to support his argument, it’s pretty hard to argue against it. And he actually makes the statement that we should repudiate justices who say that they, and not we, are the final arbiter of the constitutionality of any act of Congress.

It’s a pretty, pretty bold statement. But when you read how he lays it out and how he paints the picture of, of what our system of government is that he calls popular constitutionalism. And, you know, in that decision by John Jay and that all sovereign power is seated in the people themselves. And just because we intentionally made it difficult for the people to take specific action on constitutional matters because we’re not a democracy.

It’s not just rule of the mob. It’s not just will of the majority. It’s a republic. And in order for the people to step into their authority as the sovereigns, we have to do it collectively. We don’t do it individually. We’re collectively a sovereign. And we have to come together as a people and assume that sovereign authority. And so the big question, and, you know, this is one that you, I mean, this is one that you and I deal with all the time.

And people are saying, what can we do? Like, they know things are wrong. They know our government operates criminally and corruptly. They know that they’re playing by rules that we don’t get to play by, that they aren’t accountable, that they never have to pay for their crimes. I mean, you just look, Ron, over the past two years, I’m sure you followed it to some degree. But the Twitter files, the recent Michael Schellenberger, who is a remarkable journalist that’s uncovered the sidle files, which is the cyber, the Cyber infrastructure threat League, I didn’t know what the acronym meant, but I’m familiar with, I’m familiar with the Cito files, but I don’t know what the acronym means.

Well, you know, when you look at all that has been revealed, when you look at everything that whistleblowers have brought forward and the receipts are there, and yet there is no, no one’s being held to answer like, nobody. There’s not a single elected servant that’s being held except the, you know, the scapegoat guy that was a Republican. I can’t remember his name. Santos? Was that who it was? But nobody’s answering for crimes.

And so it leaves american people going, what can we do? What can we do? You know, the powers that have amassed and concentrated have become so big, they’ve become aligned with multinational corporations and. And, you know, big tech, big oil, big war, you know, big pharma, and just the whole corporate conglomerate, NgO’s, the private sector, the nonprofit sector. They’ve all come together to concentrate power for their own benefit.

And, you know, people like you and me are going, okay, so what can we do? And that’s where, with tactical civics and for anybody that’s listening, I encourage you to go to tacticalcivics. com, join us, or there’s a video there where you can learn more about what we’re doing. But what we’ve diagnosed are the real problems and what the real solution is. So the real problems, and I was talking about this while your phone was acting up, problem number one is that in America, for several generations now, we’ve turned our backs on God, and we’re paying for it.

And, you know, we were foolish enough to think that we don’t need the wisdom of God, we don’t need to seek the counsel of God, and that we can just do things fine on our own. And, you know, if I may. If I may say, I don’t, I believe that that has been something that has been bred in us. If you look at the elements that. That seek our destruction.

You know, the three pillars that keep us strong as a country are our faith in God, our patriotism to the country, and the nuclear family. And all three have been under siege. Yeah. You know, you know, simultaneously. And, you know, I mean, and what they’ve been doing is, you know, by taking the mother, putting her into the workplace, and allowing the educational system to essentially raise the children, we now have a system where we no longer have morals, and.

And. And the. The school system has taught us to, uh, you know, to hate our country, um, and they’ve taught us to, uh, not obey our. Our parents. Not have any respect or loyalty to our parents. Not have any respect or loyalty to our country. Not have any respect or loyalty to each other. Yeah. But, you know, like I tell anybody, you know, I was. I’ve served as a pastor off and on for the past 20 years, and I’ve sat with people in counseling situations and the most important, the quickest way out of any breakdown, whether it be on a personal level or in a relationship or within a family or a group, the first step is for everybody involved in that breakdown is to own your, your part in it.

So you, you gotta quit. You gotta quit pointing and saying, well, they did this and they did that and they did this and you got to say, okay, I’m responsible, but at the end of the day, doesn’t matter how it, it doesn’t matter how it landed in my lap. I own it now. It’s mine. And, you know, I have to own this stuff. And so, you know, at some point, every American holds a little piece of the, you know, of the weight of responsibility and of the obligation to turn to God and say, God, I can’t do this, and we can’t do this unless we have your help.

And, you know, Ben Franklin during the constitutional convention, when they were spinning their wheels in the mud, and he called for prayer, which he was the most unlikely person to do that because he was reluctant, deist at best. Well, when he called for prayer, he said, he said, you know, when we were fighting a war, we were praying in this room every day for the assistance of divine Providence to support our cause and to be the, you know, the judge of our motives, to judge the rectitude of our cause.

And he said, we did that every day. But, you know, do we think we don’t need him now? And so that’s the thing. So that’s problem number one. We just leave that, you know, be people, do with it what you will. We just trust that God will speak to each heart. And what I say in general, this is kind of my phrase that I came up with to describe where we are in America, is that we’ve chosen comfort over calling.

We haven’t lived life that function by a deep calling to a real purpose called, called faithfulness to american civic, constitutional, civic responsibility. We haven’t done that. We’ve enjoyed our nice things. And I am, I am preaching to myself. You can look over my shoulder if you want, but I chose, and even as a minister, I chose comfort over calling. I enjoyed my nice things. I didn’t bother to seek out and find out what my responsibilities were as and what, you know, what our sovereignty was, what I didn’t, I didn’t seek any of that out.

And so I have to own my piece of that. So that’s, we’ll, you know, put that where it belongs. That that’s, that’s something that each person has to, you know, I wasn’t. Yeah, I wasn’t trying to do that. I was. I’m not trying to justify anything or that. I’m simply saying that we have been under attack. Oh, there’s no question for generation and Lincoln’s war. Since Lincoln’s war, we’ve been under attack by a concentrated, organized cabal of money, interest and industry interests, just those two, the banks and industry.

And they’ve taken on different, you know, forms, you know, whether it be the war machine, whether it be, you know, big oil, whether it be, you know, mass media, big, big tech, whether it be big pharma, you know, whatever iteration of this kind of fundamental localization and centralization of money and power and then of those who control currency and control our economic policy. And those two have been together for generations, and they absolutely have worked methodically.

They’ve worked with precision, they’ve worked, you know, strategically to undermine our system of popular sovereignty and to concentrate power to strip it out of the hands of the people and to put it in the hands of the few and to distract us with bread and circus and shiny things. And that’s what they’ve done. They’ve done it with incredible aplomb. They’ve been very successful at executing their strategy. The government schools was a big part of that.

And. And we absolutely have been dumbed down. We’ve absolutely been intentionally brainwashed and taught to believe something that isn’t true. And, you know, that’s it. Yeah. I want to read something to you real quick, and it’s a very short article. The gentleman who does the. The constitution class with me on Tuesdays, he wrote a. He wrote a very brief article and said the collapse of the roman empire began long before the barbarians began to cross into the regions once ruled over by roman legions, only to topple the enemy with ease.

The roman empire, in a sense, was dying old, was a dying old man that was riddled with cancer and disease, and the barbarian horde simply put Rome out of its misery. Going on, going down here. It said this as a. Basically, I’ll send the article, but, yeah, in summation, he says, caesar, upon achieving power, promised that the rule of law would return under his reign. No one would be executed, executed for no reason.

And property seizure of political opponents would stop. If it was given the rules, if it was given the freedom to. If he was given the freedom to rule as he desired, he would be a benevolent tyrant and ensure that everyone enjoyed the freedoms the gods had divinely dispensated to them. If he was given supreme control. In other words, he would keep the peace. But the. This is what he says.

The leadership in Rome, on the way to collapsing the empire, provided gifts to the public from the treasury. Controlled farming and other key industries with subsidy. Ceased to expect assimilation by newcomers to the roman society. Increased taxation and regulations, especially upon rival businessmen. Violated the twelve tables or their constitution through legal activism. Kept the opposition off the ballot. Arrested the supporters of the opposition, accusing them of insurrection.

Tied the opposition up in court with legal challenges. Seized the properties and businesses of anyone considered to be the opposition. Rigged elections and championed sexual deviation and persecuted those who disagreed. Yeah, sounds familiar. That sounds very familiar, doesn’t it? So, so the question then is, and this is, you know, what I want to, you know, dial into. So we all know that. I mean, we all know that things are absolutely, you know, it’s a cesspool.

And everything you just described, that’s absolutely happening. They have successfully stripped us of representation. They’ve successfully put us in positions of trying to barter and bargain for our rights. So, yeah, we’re there. Everybody knows it. You know, everybody that doesn’t have something to gain from keeping things the way they are, they know that things are wrong. Question is, what are we going to do about it? Like, that’s, that, that’s.

That’s the question, what are we going to do? And, and at tactical civics, we only care about solution, like executing a solution. And. And we have defined a strategic plan of an actionable solution to restore the rule of law in America. So, and, and first part of that is we’re telling people, hey, you need to repent. That means you just need to turn and, you know, face the music and realize that you haven’t been assuming your duty and your responsibility like you should have.

You just tell God you’re sorry, and then roll your sleeves up and say, put me to work. What do you want me to do? That’s. That’s problem one. Problem two, nobody’s enforcing the constitution. Why is that? That’s criminals keep being criminals. Our government keeps operating criminally. It’s organized crime. Why are they allowed to do that? Because no one is holding them accountable. Whose job is it? And who has the authority to hold them accountable? We do.

We stipulate that authority to ourselves in the constitution. And so we have in tactical civics a very clearly defined and strategic plan to restore law enforcement, constitutional enforcement, back to the hands of the people. How do we do that? We do that at the county level, one county at a time. We build our county chapters. We build them to a target number. That’s phase one of our strategy.

We build our counties. We educate our members so that they understand the fundamentals and the basics of american popular constitutionalism and the civics that goes along with it, that we are the boss. We teach that, and then we teach them how we’re going to put these things into motion. That’s phase one, organize and educate. Phase two is we restore. In every county, we restore the constitutional authority, independence, and investigatory scope of the grand jury.

We do that through county ordinance, which has the force of law at the county level. And through those ordinances, we obligate the county government to. To specific stipulated responsibilities related to the grand jury. Why is grand jury. Why do. Why would we. Why would we go the route of grand jury? Most people don’t even know what grand jury is. Most people think that grand jury is a committee that works for the.

For the county prosecutor or the district attorney. They don’t know. Nobody knows in America right now that a grand jury is a powerful body of the people with virtually unlimited authority and investigatory scope, and that can actually enforce constitutional law, that can actually hold elected servants accountable when they violate it. Most people don’t know that. They don’t understand that. Nobody in America understands or knows the history of grand jury in America and colonial America, beginning with the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1734.

We love to talk about our war for independence. We love to talk about the Declaration of Independence that you mentioned earlier. But what no one in America understands or has any knowledge of is that were it not for county grand juries in. In the american colonies, british colonies, were it not for the county grand juries in the colonies during the revolutionary period between 1760 and 1775, there would have been no declaration of independence.

There would have been no war for independence. It simply would not have happened were it not for colonial county grand juries. And I can. I can flip through page after page after page after page of examples and of records of colonial grand juries that prevented the imperial justices and imperial prosecutors from successfully pursuing prosecution of the patriot revolutionaries. I’ll give you. Are you still there with me, Ron? I am.

I’m just trying to. I’m trying. I’m trying to preserve my phone from not. Yeah, I get it. Yeah, you’re turning. So let me just tell you a couple stories. You remember the Stamp act in 1760? Stamp act was the first. It was the first major organized resistance against. Against an act of parliament in the colonies. The imperial justices, the imperial courts, were seeking to imprison to arrest, prosecute and imprison the participants in the Stamp act rebellion.

Guess what prevented that from happening? County grand juries. Grand juries, who would you know, which was an. An institution that had evolved along with english common law. That was the sole place that the people of Great Britain could exercise independent authority and resist every power of government. And they were a phalanx that put a check on the overreach and abuse of government. So stamp act patriots, members of that rebellion, they were trying to arrest them.

And the grand jury in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, that was where a lot was going on in Suffolk county. They refused to issue a true bill of indictment against the protesters. They were threatened by the imperial justice with the fires of hell and told to go and reconvene, reconsider and come back with an indictment. They went back, they met, they reconsidered, they. They came back before the imperial justice and they said, we refuse to issue a true bill of indictment.

And the imperial court was powerless. They could not proceed with prosecution because grand jury refused to issue a bill of indictment. Tell you another story. 1769, John Hancock. So what the crown did in order to get around the grand juries was say they established admiralty courts. Admiralty courts were basically juryless courts that could charge, arrest, prosecute and imprison without any jury. Well, so they arrested John Hancock. We all know John Hancock because of his big, elaborate signature on declaration of independence.

And his name actually, actually became a thing, you know, could you give me your John Hancock whenever you were asked to give your signature? Well, the crown arrested John Hancock in 1769 and he was sitting in a Suffolk county admiralty jail. So he had been arrested, charged and imprisoned and was awaiting an admiralty trial where they were going to officially convict him of a crime and thrown in prison for a long period of time, all without a jury.

Well, the Suffolk county grand jury caught wind of what they were doing and knew that they had brought a witness against John Hampton, who had lied and perjured himself. And so the Suffolk county grand jury initiated an investigation and they issued an indictment against the crown’s only witness against John Hancock. And when they indicted him, this dude knew that he was in trouble because the county grand jury had issued an indictment and it had teeth.

So what does he do? He frees the county and the crown loses their only witness against John Hancock, and they haven’t released. And I can tell you story after story after story of grand juries in colonial America that time after time after time were stepping in and preventing the crown from prosecuting, charging, evicting and imprisoning members of the rebellion and the revolution. Miss the crime. That includes, you know, the tea party.

I mean, there were multiple tea parties. There wasn’t just one in Boston harbor. They were happening all over. There were places where they took tea off of ships and burned it out in the middle of field county grand juries or protecting the revolutionaries and refusing to issue bills of indictment. Well, guess what, America. That’s our institution. It’s our. It’s a. It’s. It’s a singular feature that belongs exclusively to the people of enforcement of our highest laws and of resistance against the tyrannical government.

And we have forgotten it. And we’ve abdicated that authority that we have in grand jury to the court system. We’ve just given it away. And we haven’t taken our responsibility to serve and to understand what our oath and our authority, our independence, our scope of inquiry. We’ve not taken any of that seriously. It’s happened. Civics. You’re in the process of amassing our counties to put that authority back in place.

Our grand jury, our model county ordinances are brilliant pieces of legal, constitutional reasoning that obligated county government to take specific actions to restore the ownership of grand jury and the independence of grand jury back to the people. We have the same plan with our county militias to lawfully establish volunteer militia bodies of the people who will initially primarily serve in that law enforcement capacity to execute the actions of the county grand jury.

When a county grand jury issues an indictment or is summonsing for, you know, summons in need for testimony, for records, for evidence, or will they issue an indictment against a judge or a prosecutor or a sheriff or a mayor or a state legislator or district judge, state district judge. When they do that, the county militia will be duly established officers appointed functioning to enforce those actions by the county grand jury.

The plan that we have to do this and execute this is solid. It’s brilliant constitutional reasoning. And once we get that established at the county level in a certain number of counties, in a certain number of states, that’s our phase two tactical objective. And our strategic plan is to get a certain number of counties and a certain number of states to this critical mass. And then all together, we roll out the implementation of our model county grand jury ordinances and our model county militia ordinances, and to restore those two law enforcement authorities and those primordial institutions, to restore.

Restore them back to the people where they belong. And then we move on to our phase three. Our phase three objective is to ratify our original first right in the Bill of Rights. That is sitting right now as a pending amendment to the Constitution. And when we establish law enforcement and we put our elected servants on notice, and they start sitting up straight in their seats and recognize and realize that the boss is back in the building, and we’re actually gonna be inspecting things, we’re gonna be investigating what they’re doing.

We’re gonna be looking in their files. We’re gonna make sure that they’re abiding by our highest law. And if they’re not, then we’re going to issue indictments. If they don’t recant, if they don’t take their names off of proposed legislation, that’s unconstitutional. But we’re going to start enforcing it. Because the thing that we make people help people understand is that what it’s going to take in order to right the ship is it’s going to take a long game, long term commitment.

And so we tell people, tactical civics, what you’re signing up for is a new way of life, a new way of spending your time, a new way of orienting your, your priorities is around being a responsible member of the collective sovereign in America and assuming the requisite duties and exercising the stipulated authorities that we gave ourselves. But irresponsible, lazy and apathetic and ignorant people can’t act on that authority.

They simply can’t do it. The system was designed for responsible and educated and committed, faithful members of we the people to execute those duties. And so once we do, then we begin the work of moving upon our state legislatures to restore and, and to ratify our original first right in the Bill of Rights. Another thing that nobody knows about. It’s an answer that is hiding in plain sight.

I mean, it’s just right there. It’s a pending amendment. It’s been pending since 1789, sitting there collecting dust. And when we get 27 more states to ratify, that’s been ratified by eleven states, it will restore representation in America right now. Which, which eleven states have ratified it? Which eleven states have ratified? Yeah. Yeah. Let me think. Kentucky. So it was eleven of the, of the first 15. So Kentucky and Vermont had been added.

I think it’d be easier for me. Let me ask, let me state who rattled who ratified it at the seven, at those. At the states who ratified it. Like, is it like something that the state legislatures have ratified? Is it. Yes. People that have come together. No. The constitutional process for amendments is that, that either the, well, you know, you just read the. What is it? The article five 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 which in either case.

So in this case, this was the bill of rights that was passed by Congress. There were twelve articles in the original bill of rights. Ten of those were ratified. Two of them remained pending. In either case shall be valid to all intents and purposes and parts of this constitution when ratified by. And this is the answer to your question. The legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress.

So in this case it was sent to be ratified by the state legislatures. The Bill of Rights was sent to be ratified by the state legislatures. The original first amendment was ratified by eleven states. It was actually ratified by twelve. But the state of Connecticut, there was a controversy. Both houses, the Connecticut Senate and the Connecticut House of Representatives, each passed and ratified the original First Amendment. But it, there was a transcription error in one of the virgin.

One of the versions, I think it was the Senate version. Not sure, maybe it was the House version, but in one of the versions that both houses had, there was a transcription error in the last line of the original First Amendment, and they wanted to change their vote. One house wanted to change their vote and they couldn’t do that. The vote was fine. Then they wanted to change the wording.

So. Well, you can’t do that either. So what wound up happening is, even though both houses and the spirit of the, of the amendment was clear, but, you know, they had this controversy over a transcription error, and Connecticut wound up sealing their notice of ratification and, and never delivered it to Congress. And so only eleven states delivered a notice of ratification. Connecticut didn’t deliver theirs. There was actually a lawsuit that was taken to the Supreme Court by a lawyer in Connecticut that discovered this, that discovered the Connecticut notice of ratification and sued for the Supreme Court to declare that the original First Amendment to be an amendment of the Constitution.

And Supreme Court refused, which they should have, because I said, well, you know, we’ve added a bunch more states, and this is, this is a duty of the states. Supreme Court can’t make that decision, you know, once other states have been added. So now, so it sits there as a pending amendment. Same thing happened with the original Second Amendment. It was originally not ratified. But here’s what’s pretty amazing as far as precedent goes.

The original Second Amendment was an amendment that addressed congressional pay, and it stipulated that if Congress voted to increase their pay, that that increase in pay could not take effect until an election intervened and a new Congress was seated. And for whatever reason, that amendment wasn’t ratified. It was ratified by ten states initially, but. So it didn’t achieve full ratification 200 years later. So this was. You know, this ratification process was happening between 1789 and 1791.

200 years later, a University of Texas college student named Greg Watson finds out about the original Second Amendment, reads it, realizes that by law, it’s a pending amendment because Congress didn’t put a expiration or a stipulation in the amendment that it would expire after a certain amount of time. So it was a pending amendment. And he thinks this is a no brainer. This should be in the Constitution.

He goes on a personal crusade, takes him nine years, and in 1992, he got the 38th state to ratify the original Second Amendment, and it became, in 1992, our new 27th Amendment, and which is still to this date, the most recent amendment to the Constitution. So our original first right fixes the. The fallout of the crime that Congress committed in 1929. I call it a crime because they knew what they were doing.

It was when they limited the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members in the reapportionment act of 1929. Nowhere in that act did they mention, what’s your. So where do you. Where do you come down on that in terms of, like, how many people should we have representing us? Well, the original First Amendment expounded on article one, section two, clause four. In article one, section two, clause four, it says after the first census that the ratio of representation would be one representative for every 30,000 people.

And in the original version, right before they sent the constitution out to the. To the. To the state conventions, it said one for every 40,000. And Nathaniel Gorham, who was a delegate from Massachusetts, made a motion that the ratio be changed from one for every 40,000 to one for every 30,000. This was, like, literally the 11th hour. They’re getting ready to send the constitution out. And when he made that motion, George Washington stood up to be recognized to speak at the convention for the first time in the entire proceedings.

And. And this was the one issue that he thought was worth influencing. And he said, I strongly encourage and second this motion for a change in this clause and strongly encourage its passage, because this issue, more than any other, will determine the success of ratification of this constitution, because this is the issue that the people are most concerned with, and that is the smallness of representative districts, because the people knew that if the population grew and representation didn’t grow, with the population and stayed small, that, that would be a recipe for despotism and tyranny.

And so. So it passed unanimously. Well, the original First Amendment took that clause and expounded on it. And it said the, after the first census, the ratio will be one for every 30,000 until Congress reaches the number of 100, after which the ratio will be one for every 40,000 until Congress reaches the number of 200, after which the ratio will be one for every 50,000. And then that’s where it ends.

The founders understood the need for small representative districts. Right now, the average ratio of representation is one representative for every 750,000 people. That’s average. We have some districts that have one representative for over 1 million souls. I’ve asked congressmen, I’ve asked senators representatives. Does that sound like adequate representation, an average of one representative for every three quarter of a million people? And the honest answers I’ve gotten is, no, that’s not adequate.

So now, if we did the 50, if we did 50,000 people, that would essentially mean that the House of Representatives would be 6000 people. Yes. 6400 or maybe 6800. We create 66,400. I was just doing, I was just doing the math quick in my head. Yeah. So what does that do? What does that do? Let me tell you what it does. First thing it does is, well, here’s the first thing it does.

So that’s our phase three plan, is to get our original first right ratified. And again, this was considered a right of the people to have small representative districts. The Congress included that number one in the twelve articles of amendments that were, that were outlining what the rights of the people and representation was. The primary right that the people have in a representative republican system of governance, and it’s been stripped away from us.

So what does it do when we create 6400 new representative districts? Well, what it does first is it allows us to move to our phase four strategic plan, and that is to make the first act of that new Congress. Because, understand, when that happens, it’s going to break multimillion dollar campaigns. It’s gonna break gerrymandering. It’s gonna, it’s gonna restore a voice to the 31,000 small towns in America.

It’s gonna get rural areas like where I live, an actual voice. It’s gonna end the bloodbath every ten years of redistricting and gerrymandering goes along with it. It’s going to, and then it’s going to give us the opportunity for that first act of this new congress in January of you know, January 2025 or 2026, they’re going to meet in a large venue in Washington, DC, and they’re going to bring up one piece of proposed legislation, and we’ve already got it drafted and it’s called the Bring Congress Home act.

And in it, it will stipulate that every representative works full time, either from a home office or from a local modest office space rented with two staff people full time. They’re not working in Washington, DC anymore. And it’s going to stipulate that every senator has to work out of their state capital or in proximity to their state capital in a larger office with six staff people. Here’s what’s amazing is that we can fund that for what we’re, for less than what we’re spending now on Congress.

Right now we’re spending ten and a half. A question about the Senate. All right, so, so obviously one of the, one of the most heinous pieces of legislation or amendments that was passed was the 17th Amendment. Right. Because essentially what it did is it just made the senators over glorified House of Representatives because the, you know, the original constitution, the stipulation legislatures. Right. Well, so you had, you had one body, the legislature would.

So you had, like the legislature would do one senator and then the state senate would do another now. And then at the, at the county level, I think it was Reynolds, was it Reynolds v. Sims and what, 65 or 67? I think when what they did was that that was where it made the counties or the state senators to be, instead of it being done by counties because the counties are to the states what the states are to the federal government and the counties are supposed to also elect their state senator.

So take California, for example. If you had, if, if you have 58 senators in California that are elected by the 58 individual counties, then you would have a much more conservative and balanced state. Right. Than you would if you had it just where it, where it’s like. So, I mean, right now you’ve got. Los Angeles county has 13 senators by itself. Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, curious where you guys are on.

Well, eventually. So if you can imagine, you know, with our bring Congress home act, we’re going to stipulate that Congress works from their local district or in their state capital where we can keep an eye on them that begins a process. We have tactical civics right now. We have 19 proposed reform laws to fix the mess that our federal government is right now and to roll back a number with draconian measures.

I mean, they are draconian measures because that’s what we need. We need strong medicine because we are sick. Our federal government is sick. It’s diseased, and it needs strong medicine. Oh, amen to that. Our 19 reform. So eventually, we will keep amendment. Well, eventually what I’m getting to is that we will render the issue of the 17th Amendment a moot point. Point, because our, our third reform law is the non enumerated Power Sunset act, and it’s our most expansive piece of proposed legislation.

In it, we create a body of we the people, numbering 47,000, distributed across all of the 6800 representative districts, who are going to oversee the work of our representatives and senators. And, and they are going to have tremendous redlining authority and power by a simple majority of what we call citizens volunteer review service groups, seven member groups in every district that will, that will redline line items in omnibus bills or budget bills, and we’ll go through them.

And we’re working on tech right now through AI, called our indictment engine that flags unconstitutional illegal proposed legislation and sends notices to the appropriate state grand juries in our counties where the sponsors of those bills reside. And guess what? Our federal government, our congress is going to be working in the state. We’ve got our second piece of legislation called the Constitutional Courts act, and in it, we prevent legislators from changing venue from state to federal.

We will keep everything they do in our states where the people can execute their authority to hold them accountable and not let them get by with any kind of nonsense. Let me ask you, if I may do. Is tactical civics exclusively focused at the federal level, or are you also having tactical civics to be, like, within the states? Focused not just at the state, at the federal level, but also at the state level.

So, you know, our initial. Within the states that are focused, our initial focus will be on our initial focus with building our county chapters and, and restoring the law enforcement authority of we the people through our primordial institutions of grand jury and, and volunteer lawful county militia is to hold our local and state elected servants accountable, to obey our state constitutions. And so our initial focus is enforcing the law at the local and state level before we even get into addressing the nonsense that our federal legislators are doing.

So we begin at the state level and the county level, but the primary goal is to. I would say that. I would say that this needs to be done from the ground level up as opposed to. As opposed to top down, and that would. And state level first and then going up to the, to the federal level. But you talk strategic plan, our phase two strategic plan. So what I was describing to you about reform laws.

That’s phase four. That’s, that’s way down the road. Immediately in our phase two, once we get our chapters built to a certain number within a certain number of counties and a certain number of states, and we implement our local grand jury ordinance and volunteer county militia ordinance, once we put those two pieces in place of enforcement, then in phase two, our focus is on local and state government to hold them accountable, to look at what they’re doing, inspect their work, investigate if we have even the slightest suspicion that there’s a violation of constitutional law in our state.

And, you know, or if we just want the assurance that things are being done the right way, we have the authority to do that. We put specific language in our ordinances that require the county government, specific stipulations that require the county government to take certain actions that are driven by the people so that it’s, we’re requiring them to. When the people say we need to look into this, then we obligate the county, county court and the county judge to empanel a grand jury because they don’t have discretion.

Grand jury is a separate and independent body of the people. That, and we have an unbridled right. Us versus Williams, 1992. Scalia said, we have an unbridled right to have grand juries empaneled to investigate suspected criminal violations of the law, even if it involves a judge or a prosecutor or a sheriff or a mayor or a state legislator. And so that’s our focus initially. And it’s, that’s where we establish that we, the people, the sovereign in America are occupying their office of sovereign authority and of superintendents.

That’s where we establish that. And, and then what will follow when we, when we initiate move into phase three? And we demand our state legislators to do their duty and to ratify our first right that the people demand this. It’s a right that the people absolutely require. And once we get them to do that, then, then we can move on to phase four, which is our, and, and fix federal government.

So we start local, we establish lawful government at the local level and the state level and then eventually we break corruption in Washington, DC. And we cut the leash that all the big tech, big oil, big industry, big banking, big pharma, we cut the leash that they have their congressional pets attached to and we’re going to bring them all back to our home districts and back to our states and we’re going to say, well, they’re, they belong to us now.

They’re our pets. They’ll they’ll, they’ll do our bidding because that’s who’s bidding they’re supposed to do. Well, I, you know, I’m, you given me a lot different. I shouldn’t say different. This is just a lot more robust than what I recall when, when David came on earlier. It could be that my understanding of it is a little bit better, but I mean, this is, this sounds phenomenal. And I pray that, that we’re able to get a lot of these things implemented because I fear that.

I fear that we’re going to have kinetic action in our country prior to some of this stuff being able to be implemented because this is definitely a mechanism that can fix what our problems without genetic action. Yeah, are, Ron, it, absolutely. This plan will work. All it lacks is critical mass of responsible, repentant members of we, the people stepping up to do the chores. That’s all we lack is that those people, committed and educated who are ready to assume the duties.

Once we have the numbers of educated, empowered members that know what we’re doing, that know the rationale, can argue for it and can step forward and step into it, then we can move and we can act. And here’s what we believe with all of our hearts, Ron, or else, you know, we would, you, you know, know, eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. We believe that we are where we are because of God’s judgment on America.

God has given us over to our own stupidity and our own machinations. And what we believe is this. You know, this is why we don’t like, we don’t give in to the fear porn, to the intelligence reports, to the plan or whatever. We don’t listen to any of that because we wholeheartedly believe that we have as much time as God gives us. As long as God is seeing people not only wake up, but own up to what our responsibilities and duties and authority is and what’s required of us.

You know, waking up is one thing, but if you stay in bed after you wake up on your phone, what good is waking up? So, yeah, a lot of people are waking up, but it’s only the people who own up to their responsibility that are actually going to make a difference. And we believe that if God sees that happening, that people are humbly saying, God, sorry that I chose comfort over calling, and I’m ready to own up to the responsibilities that are requisite to keeping the republic that you gave us, then God is more than able to stay the hand of evil as long as good people are actively stepping forward to learn their duties and assume those duties.

So fear not. Well, you know, let me say there’s a, and I mean no disrespect to anybody in the chat and to anything that you’ve said in terms of, you know, belonging to God and having faith in God. Listen, God works through men, all right? And it is upon us. You know, it is upon us. He’s not a fairy godmother. He doesn’t heavens and do this for us, all right? God puts, God puts the right men in place.

I mean, all through the Bible, I mean, God used Moses, God used Elijah, all these men, okay, to get things done. And he doesn’t do it for us, he does it in us. So, so do not, do not rely on God. And don’t say that Trump is God’s man, that Trump’s going to come and do it all for us. No, Trump is not a messianic figure, okay? And for those, and for those who believe in the military, let me tell you something, I have really get kind of adjusted my, I do believe that there are good forces in the military.

However, you look at the, at the way that the military has been completely bastardized and overhauled by way of all these communist, you know, you talk about all the woke and the DEI and all this other stuff that has just decimated our military and our military is not, is nowhere near the fighting force that it is going to need to be to do this. And it’s going to be really, I think it’s going to be the military is going to be the former people who were in the military, who are loyal to the constitution that are going to be the ones that have to fix this.

So that is the military as I view it. The people who are believing in military rule and military intervention are believing, are putting their trust in an unconstitutional mechanism of action and that completely undermines the sovereign authority of the people. And, yeah, all that nonsense. Look, when we talk about, when we talk about trusting God and that we have as much time as God gives us and what I mean by as long as God sees responsible people stepping forward is that God is not a wizard who waves a magic wand.

God works with us, in us and through us. And that’s God’s desired way of accomplishing things, is within and through men and women who are faithful to a, to a calling and a cause. He doesn’t, he doesn’t, he doesn’t, you know, wave magic wands. He doesn’t, he works with us, in us and through us. And so we believe as long as people are stepping forward that God is able to, you know, to hold back, back the, the torrent and, and absolutely give us, we have to do the work we have.

Exactly my point. Period. Exactly my point. Exactly my point. We have to do the work. Now. That doesn’t mean, that does not mean that there are, there are not forces out there that aren’t, that are doing things at levels that we don’t have access to then that is, those are forces that are in military that, you know, you’ve got good guys in high places that are doing things that we can’t, you know, they can’t have access to.

Yeah. Yeah. But leveraging their position and capability, sure. Yes. But the boots on the ground. The boots on the ground is going to be us. Yep. Absolutely. And that’s what we’re doing. That’s tactical civics. That’s what we’re all about. And look, we’ve grown since January of last year. So we’re 1415 months in now. Yeah. February, march. So 15 months. We went from 500 members across our republic. We had 500 members total.

The end of, in January of last year, we were in 280 counties. We had at least one member in 280 counties. 14 months, 15 months later, we’re at about 7500 members. 7500 members from 500. 1640 counties from 280. So that’s just been in the last four. And, you know, so we’re growing and we just need people to go on tactical civics. com and watch the videos. But more than anything, you know, I just encourage people to, you know, before you go to bed tonight, just sit down before you lay your head on your pillow.

Look, you don’t need to be a theologian or, you know, card carrying churchgoer to just sit down humbly bow your head and say, God, uh, search my heart, know my, try me and know my anxious thoughts. And, and if I’m not doing what I need to be doing, then just show me and I’ll do it. That’s it. Real simple. Oh, um, I, you know, I, this is, I’m very impressed with this point.

I’m very impressed with this plan. And, you know, I encourage everybody to go check out, you know, your, your website. And I did tactical civics. com. Thank you. Tactical civics. com. So, and I’d like to have, actually, I’d love to get you back on to come, come back on here in a month or two. Yeah. You know, looking at, looking at some of the things that are, that I feel that are going to happen in this country, you know, in terms of, you know, I see economic things breaking.

I see all of these systems that are breaking with, oh, you’ve got, you, you know, all the migrant crisis. I mean, all of this. There’s. I fervently believe that we are going to see a system, a breaking of our existing system, and I think it’s going to, to be ugly, and I don’t know how long that is going to last. Yeah. And, Ron, one thing I wanted to add before we, before we wrap up is a lot of people, this is one response I’ve gotten to.

A lot of people, when I talk about our full spectrum solution and it’s involved, I mean, it’s actually simple, but it’s incredibly dense. It’s really weighty, weighty substance constitutionally. Uh, uh, you know, in terms of, of, you know, what our strategy is. But, you know, some people are convinced that it’s too late. Some people are just convinced that, you know, we’ve, we’re, we’ve passed go, you know, we’re not collecting $200.

We’re, you know, we’re, we’re going straight to jail kind of thing. You know, that it’s over, that we’re, we’ve crossed Rubicon. We’re not. No, it’s never over. Yeah. So, so there are people that say that, that we’re out of time. You know, we’ve waited too late. And, you know, first of all, I’m a, I absolutely, utterly, vehemently resist and oppose nihilism. I just, it’s just, I got too much faith.

I got, I believe too much in what, what God can do through willing hearts to people who are ready to step forward and work and do the job. But here’s what I tell those people that think, oh, we’re too far gone. America’s going to fall. Our economy’s going to fall. I’m like, okay, so let’s say it does fall. What are we going to replace it with? We better have an educated, committed, faithful, responsible remnant of we, the people who know what to do, who know how to restore constitutional government, who know what our constitution is, who know how it’s supposed to, you know, both at the state and the federal level and who are ready to put that system in place, who, who’ve done all the homework, who.

I agree. And so, so if anything get involved, if you do believe that, that it’s too late, we’re going to collapse. Okay, fine. Well, then be a part of the solution when it collapses, that we’re ready to put something in place that’s going to honor our founding principles. But for whatever, you know, for God’s sake, don’t give in to defeatism and nihilism. Do some. I hope I’m not coming across as nihilism.

No, no, you’re not. I. What I was saying. No, no, no. I just tell people, because there are people that believe that it’s too late, you know. Yeah, we’re gonna feel some pain. There’s no question that we’re gonna feel some pain. But, you know, I do have a fundamental. I do have a fundamental belief that. That. I do have a fundamental belief that the God who created the heavens and the earth is involved and is working in and through the people who are taking responsibility and who humbly are seeking to honor him.

And I do believe that. And, you know, at some point, you have to believe that there’s a power greater than ourselves working outside and beyond our own limitations and, you know, at contingent capacities to hold things together. And, you know, if you don’t believe that, like, if you believe that we’re holding it together, well, then, well, then, things, you know, then the future is not very bright. But if you believe that, that, you know, the divine providence that created the heavens and the earth is involved in human affairs and is working within and through us to accomplish a good end, if we’ll do our part, like, if we’ll, you know, if we’ll actually do the necessary work, that’s always a part of it.

It never, you know, if we’re just sitting on our brains on the couch. God doesn’t seem to move much in those cases. Well, as I always say, God can’t steer a parked car. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, that’s great. I love it. Yeah. Get out there and start moving, man. And, you know, I tell people, do something, even if it’s wrong. Yeah. So, you know, I mean, you know, I’m absolutely of the opinion that.

That God has his hand in this, but again, like I said, we have to be out there and being involved. Yeah. And does that mean. Does that mean that, you know, if we. If certain things happen where we get where. Where things do go kinetic on a certain level, you know, what. Where, you know, what it’s going to. To be a good month or two or three or six, possibly, where it’s going to be extremely uncomfortable? Well, you know, everything that you.

Everything that you talked about is a 100% right, because it has to be. It is. We are. What’s going to happen is, is that we are going to begin to get our local economies back yeah. Then once you get the local economies back, then it’s going to be regional. And then once you get the regional, then it’s going to be state. And then once you get the states, then it’s going to be, then it’s, then it’s going to be all coming together at the same again.

But there’s not going to be a choice other than for it to be come together at the, at the local level first. Just kind of like what you said, you know, and this, this from the tactical civics, that makes perfect sense as a dovetail to fix this all when it, when we actually do go into a situation where, because, I mean, let’s face it, we are, we are basically a morphine addicted patient.

Yeah. Who is just, who’s walking through life numb. And when they, when we pull the morphine away, we are going to be violently ill for a period of time. And that is not, that is not something that can be avoided. I do not. Tactical civics will be, tactical civics will be the ministers of rehab and recovery for our unconstitutional system, and we will be the future. Absolutely. Of the restoration of proper constitutional governance.

Right. Absolutely. Well, listen, I’m gonna, let’s, let’s go ahead and call it a night while I have service. Yeah. Hey, great talking to you, Ron. Let’s, let’s, let’s do it again. Just let me know and schedule another. Absolutely. I’ll be in touch. I appreciate you taking the, taking the reins as I was struggling through this. I didn’t intend on it, on it being like this, but, but I appreciate you, you know, having the ability to, you know, to kind of take the reins and go and put up with my, tolerate, my inconsistency of being online.

So thank, my pleasure. My pleasure. Excellent. Well, hey, guys, again, check out tacticalcivics. com and we’ll get Jeff to come back on here in the next, you know, couple, in the next month or two. We’ll get him to come back on and I’m sure that we’ll have quite a bit to talk about between now and then. Absolutely. Well, how, hey, have a great visit to Phoenix and safe travels back home.

I appreciate that, brother. Thank you very much and appreciate your time this evening. Thank you, everybody. And we will see you. I don’t know if I’m going to be able to get the Friday night watch party on tomorrow night. I will try. I didn’t upload something today, but if I can, great. If not, I’ll get something put up. It might be a little bit later in the evening, but I’ll be home tomorrow night, so.

All right, man. Everybody, thanks. Thanks for your time. And, Jeff, hang tight. .

See more of Untold History Channel on their Public Channel and the MPN Untold History Channel channel.