[TWG Note: I'm a huge fan of Gary Marbut's work on behalf of our Second Amendment Rights, as well as many other liberty related efforts not just here in Montana, but across the entire United States. Mr. Marbut works diligently throughout the year, especially when our legislature is in session. He's in Helena nearly every day our legislature meets and certainly every day they schedule legislation that would affect our gun rights and State Sovereignty issues. Mr. Marbut deserves whatever support we can provide for him in this coming election. WE NEED HIM....... BADLY. Please donate whatever you can afford to give in order to help Mr. Marbut win Montana's HD99 race. Even if you reside in a different State, please support Mr. marbut. He's working for ALL of us!]
From Mr. Gottlieb:
This is VERY IMPORTANT!
Gary Marbut has been one of the Nation’s most successful pro-gun political activists for nearly three decades. That’s why he was twice named Gun Rights Activist of the Year at the Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference.
Gary is now a candidate for the Montana Legislature. GARY NEEDS YOUR HELP. Gary needs some serious money to win his campaign against a liberal anti-gun lawyer.
Why should you help? Here are just a few of the 58 bills that Gary Marbut has written and lobbied through the Montana Legislature:
- Putting the right to hunt and fish into the Montana Constitution;
- The Shooting Range Protection Act, to protect shooting ranges from arbitrary closure;
- The Shooting Range Development Act, using hunter license dollars for matching grants to improve shooting ranges;
- The Self Defense Bill, strengthening many legal aspects of self defense in Montana;
- Montana’s “shall issue” concealed weapon permit law;
- The original Montana Firearms Freedom Act.
Many of the bills Gary has written and gotten passed have been a model inspiring clones of his bills in other states, like the Firearms Freedom Act, the Shooting Range Protection Act, and more.
Gary Marbut has worked long and hard for gun rights. Now we need to help Gary! If we can help Gary get elected, just think how much more effective he will be for us “on the other side of the table” as a full-time legislator instead of an un-elected, part-time volunteer.
To win his election, Gary needs the most generous contribution you can afford to send him – now. The maximum he is allowed by law to receive from any individual is $160, although you and another family member could each send $160.
If you can’t afford this much, please send $100, or $50, or whatever you can. Any amount is a big help. If you send $35 or more, Gary is required to report your occupation and employer, so please write those in the memo line of your check. Corporate checks aren’t allowed.
Please send whatever contribution you can, right now, to:
Montanans for Marbut
P.O. Box 16106
Missoula, Montana 59808
Or… You can contribute online at the link below:
Gary has always stood with us – now we need to stand with him. My personal thanks for whatever you can do.
[TWG Note: Typical commies..... They will LIE, CHEAT and STEAL in order to accomplish their diabolical schemes because they know NOBODY but another commie would support their plans to destroy this once great Nation.... and especially our Veterans, who have fought AGAINST communism and fascism. NOT FOR IT. Our returning Veterans are being labled with "PTSD" before they even step foot on our soil. Drugged up and "diagnosed" with a mental problem, THEY ARE BEING SYSTEMATICALLY DISARMED ON A MASSIVE SCALE. As a member of several Veterans organizations, you can BET I'm going to expose these LIARS for what they are.]
By Dustin Hurst ǀ Watchdog.org
HELENA — In Montana’s U.S. Senate showdown between incumbent Democrat Jon Tester and GOP candidate U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg, a coalition of union and environmental groups has struck again — this time masquerading as a military veterans organization.
In an ad released Tuesday, VoteVets.org deployed Helena resident and Iraq War veteran Jed Kearns to slam the Republican challenger. Kearns claims Rehberg voted with fellow House Republicans to kill funding for prosthetics studies.
That might be powerful if it were true…(Con’t)
[TWG Note: Imagine that... We know our Montana Secretary of State, Linda McCulloch, was up to no good when she and her grunts pushed so hard for the fraud-filled, mail-in voting schemes. It's like watching the snake guard the mouse cage. Montanans need to vote her (and her little grunts too) off her big, fat, throne.]
From the diaries by Erick . . .
In at least two counties in Montana, the home of a competitive U.S. Senate race that could tip the balance of power in the upper chamber, massive mail-in absentee ballot irregularities have been uncovered by Media Trackers Montana, a non-partisan investigative research organization with operations in five states across the country. In Broadwater county alone, where Sen. Jon Tester received only 35 percent of the vote in the 2006 general election, up to 600 erroneous mail-in ballots have been reported. Over a dozen Billings-area voters have complained that they received incorrect ballots. Yellowstone county officials have also reported numerous complaints from voters receiving the wrong ballot.
And to top it all off, even a sample ballot available to individual voters on the Montana Secretary of State’s website is incorrect (this particular ballot allows the voter to select a state representative in two separate districts — districts 68 and 83). A majority of Montana voters are expected to vote by mail this November.
The Media Trackers investigation found state political officials in total disarray. One county elections supervisor gave Media Trackers Montana several conflicting reasons for the ballot snafu. Broadwater County elections officer Rhonda Nelson, a Democrat, told Media Trackers that the county experienced a “computer glitch with the software vendor” which resulted in numerous ballot anomalies. But when pressed for more specificity, Nelson seemed to contradict herself, stating, “This happened because I was in the hospital the day the ballots were approved and while my deputy was watching things, it was one less set of eyes on the process.” Despite the widespread and significant ballot problems, Nelson told Media Trackers that she was confident in the integrity of the mail-in ballot system and that she planned to “personally call everyone who received a bad ballot and let them know they will be getting correct ballots.”
Scott Aspenlieder, a Republican seeking to unseat current Secretary of State Linda McCulloch, a Democrat, issued a scathing press release after Media Trackers first reported the ballot irregularities. “I call on our Secretary of State to begin a comprehensive audit of all of the 2012 absentee ballots to identify every single error, and immediately take steps to fix this process so a Montanan’s right to vote is never threatened again,” he wrote. “This failure of leadership is simply unacceptable, and Montanans deserve better.”
By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
January 3, 2012
Candidate for Montana Attorney General, Jim Shockley, stated while sitting in his official capacity as Montana Senator that original and true meaning of state sovereignty, as expressed in the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution, was changed and ridded by the Civil War.
Shockley’s position is completely incorrect constitutionally and historically. Moreover, it is dangerous to Montana’s rights and to the liberties of Montanans. Any attorney holding this view of the constitution does not qualify to serve as Montana’s next Attorney General.
I. Montana’s 2012 Attorney General Must Hold Correct View of the U.S. Constitution
Of all people who must understand, respect, and protect the system of federalism prescribed in the United States Constitution, it should be a State’s Attorney General. To qualify for this trusted position, one must know the true meaning, nature, and character of the United States Constitution. As well, he must understand America’s origins of political philosophy to guide his thoughts and conclusions relative to the oath of office to which he swears. Without this, the State will be in jeopardy of losing rights and will have obligations it otherwise would not have. The State would suffer politically, socially, and economically years afterwards.
II. The United States Constitution Requires Use and Protection of State Sovereignty
The United States Constitution established a system of government whereby the States would retain all sovereignty and power not expressly delegated to the federal government. Our historical records reveal that the tenth amendment was intended by the ratifiers as both a substantive declaration as well as a provision of protection.
The insistence of the tenth amendment ensured that all would interpret Congress’ power to regulate the internal affairs of the States with strict scrutiny. James Madison recognized that where the judiciary specifically did not apply the correct mode of interpreting State sovereignty, it would lead to “an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact” (Federalist Paper 39).
The tenth amendment’s substantive and formal importance was advocated by both Anti-Federalists and Federalists. The overall understanding and exposition of Congress’ power under the United States Constitution was held in this light: “the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty…which were not…EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 32).
These parallel lines of sovereignty were deemed the essence of freedom’s protection. Admittedly, more emphasis was placed on this division of sovereignty than was placed on precisely defining the extent of Congress’ powers. Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist Paper 31, “all observations founded upon the danger of usurpation ought to be referred to the composition and structure of the government, NOT to the nature or extent of its powers” (emphasis added).
Given (a) the “infirmities and depravities of the human character” (James Madison, Federalist Paper 37), (b) popular elections are not sufficient to check ambitious government, and (c) the problems with mutable policies; the founders observed that “mere declarations in the written constitution are not sufficient to restrain the several departments [of the federal government” (James Madison, Federalist Paper 49).
Thus, the structure of the constitution provided political defense from both the State and the United States, and the people’s rights were more protected from usurpations. In juxtaposition, where the structure allowed for one side to dominate the other without defense, usurpations would become more frequent and dangerous. This consequence was to be avoided by all means.
Since the constitution’s ratification, both state and federal courts have recognized that the United States Constitution was based upon principles of federalism. “This constitutionally mandated division of authority ‘was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties.’” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991). The constitution is the supreme law of the land, not just what Congress says. All must obey and protect it.
Shockingly, there is an attorney running for Montana Attorney General in 2012 who does not subscribe to this form of government but instead, flips it on its head to create an entirely different form of government than what was ratified by the consent of the governed. This person is Jim Shockley. Shockley’s view of the constitution has been revealed by his statements while sitting as a Senator for Montana.
III. Shockley’s View of Constitution is Right-Wing Extremism: Governance Not Based On the Supreme Law of the Land, but on Military Force
Shockley believes that the United States Constitution changed in 1865 from its organic form. This change came not by the consent of the governed through constitutional process—the will of the people—but by military force. To Shockley, the Civil War “settled” all issues involving State Sovereignty. By “resolved,” Shockley really means, conquered.
In spite of (1) our forbearers’ sacrifices from 1776 to 1781 to win independence from Great Britain (see, Federalist Paper 45); (2) their tireless efforts and genius to create a federal republic composed of sovereign States as seen in every union formed in America from 1776 to 1787 (Id.); (3) the intent and genius of our forefathers from 1781 to 1791 to perpetuate a federal republic; (4) the innumerable debates and cognitions made by America’s statesmen; (5) and the United States Supreme Court decisions contradicting Shockley’s view of the constitution, Shockley believes that all federal laws are superior to the States’ and that all States must obey even where those federal laws or actions violate the essence of federalism and Congress’ limited powers.
It is no surprise then, that Shockley denies the power of the States to interpose against federal usurpations. It is doubtful if Shockley has a plan to substantively reduce federal intrusion and to respond to federal violations of the constitution. This is evident given his campaign website statement that he opposed Montana’s citizen initiative in 2004 for medical marijuana use because it “was illegal under the federal law.” Never mind that growing and using a natural plant was never a matter to be regulated by Congress. To Shockley, it is not the supreme law of the land that guides his position on the issue, but federal law. Shockley’s position is dangerous to Montana.
Read the rest of article picking up at “IV.”
Subscribe to Timothy Baldwin’s articles by going to www.LibertyDefenseLeague.com. Order Timothy and Chuck Baldwin’s recently released book, Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission by going to www.Romans13Truth.com.
1. “One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one…As little will it avail us, that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced…that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” James Madison, Federalist Paper 48.
2. “The internal effects of a mutable political are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood”. James Madison, Federalist Paper 62.
3. “[W]e must look for [the constitution’s meaning]…in the State Conventions, which accepted and ratified the Constitution”. Kurt Lash, Meaning of an Omission, citing, 5 ANNALS OF CONG. 776, James Madison (1796).
4. “They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society. They reared the fabrics of governments which have no model on the face of the globe. They formed the design of a great Confederacy, which it is incumbent on their successors to improve and perpetuate. If their works betray imperfections, we wonder at the fewness of them. If they erred most in the structure of the Union, this was the work most difficult to be executed; this is the work which has been new modelled by the act of your convention, and it is that act on which you are now to deliberate and to decide.” James Madison, Federalist Paper 14 (emphasis added).
© 2011 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD – All Rights Reserved
Timothy Baldwin is an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana (and Florida) and focuses on constitutional issues. Baldwin graduated from the University of West Florida in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English and Political Science. In 2004, Baldwin graduated from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, AL with a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree. From there, Baldwin became an Assistant State Attorney in Florida. For 2 1/2 years, Baldwin prosecuted criminal actions and tried nearly 60 jury trials. In 2006, Baldwin started his private law practice and has maintained it since.
Baldwin is a published author, public speaker and student of political philosophy. Baldwin is the author of Freedom For A Change, Romans 13-The True Meaning of Submission, and Political Discussions for People of States–all of which are available for purchase through Liberty Defense League. Baldwin has also authored hundreds of political science articles relative to liberty in the United States of America. Baldwin has been the guest of scores of radio shows and public events and continues to exposit principles which the people in America will need to determine its direction for the future.
Web site: LibertyDefenseLeague