NORTH AMERICAN LAW CENTER • P.O.

Box 783 • HERMITAGE TN 37076 • 888-254-3291

Rebuttal Memorandum
TO: Representative Matheny FROM: North American Law Center S !"#CT: Tennessee !alance o$ %owers Act &AT#: February '( )*+,

%er your re-uest( we have reviewed the related Memorandum dated "anuary ,+( )*+, as provided by the Tennessee O$$ice o$ Le.al Services/ The $ollowin. rebuttal is based upon our research and $indin.s o$ $act/ First( we must establish that the /S/ Constitution( which includes the !ill o$ Ri.hts( is the 0supreme law o$ the land/1 The $ederal .overnment does not occupy that position/ The /S/ Constitution( includin. the !ill o$ Ri.hts( is the .overnin. document over $ederal authority/ Laws made in Pursuance thereof( shall en2oy 0supremacy(1 while laws not made in Pursuance thereof are without constitutional authority/ The operative phrase in Art/ 34( Section ) o$ the /S/ Constitution is( 0Laws made in %ursuance thereo$51 the operative word bein. Pursuance, or Pursuit/ At the $oundation o$ the !alance o$ %owers Act and -uestioned in the sub2ect Memorandum( are two $undamental items o$ interest5 +/ &o $ederal laws not made in Pursuance of Constitutional authorities and purposes en2oy constitutional supremacy6 4t is our opinion that only $ederal laws “made in Pursuance thereof;” as stated in the Art/ 34( Section ) 0supremacy clause(1 en2oy 0$ederal supremacy(1 and that all laws “not made in Pursuance thereof;” e7ist without constitutional authority/ )/ 8hen the $ederal .overnment acts beyond its constitutional authority( what are the states9 ri.hts( duties and remedies6 8e believe that the Tennessee !alance o$ %owers Act is the answer to this -uestion/

NorthAmericanLawCenter.org

#ach branch o$ the $ederal .overnment is assi.ned certain speci$ic constitutional duties( alon. with the authority to carry out those duties/ Accordin. to the /S/ Constitution( all $ederal law: ma;in. authority and power is assi.ned to the le.islative branch alone/ The 2udicial branch( throu.h court decisions and opinions( does not have the power or authority to ma;e law/ The e7ecutive branch o$ the $ederal .overnment is also without any constitutional law ma;in. power or authority whatsoever/ As a result( we re2ect the audacity o$ citin. 0case law1 or 0le.al precedence1 as a means o$ 0ma;in. law/1 4n addition( the cases -uoted in the sub2ect Memorandum( $ocusin. on 0nulli$ication(1 are entirely unrelated and irrelevant to the sub2ect o$ the Tennessee !alance o$ %owers Act/ Second( as stated in the Tennessee State Constitution under Article 4( Section 4( &eclaration o$ Ri.hts < state .overnments have ri.hts and duties to the people/ 0That all power is inherent in the people( and all $ree .overnments are $ounded on their authority( and instituted $or their peace( sa$ety( and happiness5 $or the advancement o$ those ends they have at all times( an unalienable and inde$easible ri.ht to alter( re$orm( or abolish the .overnment in such manner as they may thin; proper/1 States have ri.hts and protectin. those ri.hts( and the ri.hts o$ their citi=ens( is the primary duty o$ every state .overnment/ The /S/ Constitution identi$ies the ri.hts o$ the people in Amendment 4> < 0The enumeration in the Constitution( o$ certain ri.hts( shall not be construed to deny or dispara.e others retained by the people/1 4t is the duty o$ state .overnment to protect the people9s ri.hts under state ri.hts identi$ied in Amendment > < 0The powers not dele.ated to the nited States by the Constitution( nor prohibited by it to the States( are reserved to the States respectively( or to the people/1 Clearly( the states and the people have very broad ri.hts( whereas the $ederal .overnment9s power and authority is strictly limited and delineated to only that which the people( throu.h their states( dele.ated to the $ederal .overnment via the /S/ Constitution and !ill o$ Ri.hts/ nder the constitutionally dele.ated powers o$ the nited States( the $ederal le.islative branch can ma;e laws( and when those laws are made in Pursuance o$ the terms( conditions and purpose o$ the Constitution( such laws do indeed en2oy 0supremacy1 over state and local laws/ ?owever( when the $ederal .overnment acts beyond its dele.ated authorities( at odds with the constitution rather than in Pursuance thereof( the $ederal .overnment has committed an unconstitutional act/ An unconstitutional act is without authority( repu.nant to the states and the people( and is not 0supreme law1 at all/ %ertainin. to the -uestion re.ardin. 2urisdiction over the issue o$ constitutionality( wherein a state is party to a dispute( the /S/ Constitution under Art/ 444( Section ) answers this -uestion/ 04n all cases a$$ectin. ambassadors( other public ministers and consuls( and those in

NorthAmericanLawCenter.org

which a state shall be party( the Supreme Court shall have ori.inal 2urisdiction/1 Consistent with the te7t o$ the !alance o$ %owers Act( ori.inal 2urisdiction is de$ined as : A Court@s power to hear and decide a case be$ore any appellate review/ A trial court must necessarily have ori.inal 2urisdiction over the types o$ cases it hears/ Ori.inal 2urisdiction should not be con$used with 0$inal authority/1 Only the /S/ Supreme Court has 2urisdiction in disputes arisin. between a state and the $ederal .overnment over -uestions o$ constitutionality/ No other court has 2urisdiction/ ?owever( as is stated in the !alance o$ %owers Act( the people( not the .overnment( shall be the 0$inal authority1 on the issue o$ constitutionality/ 0To consider the 2ud.es as the ultimate arbiters o$ all constitutional -uestions AisB a very dan.erous doctrine indeed( and one which would place us under the despotism o$ an oli.archy/ Our 2ud.es are as honest as other men and not more so/ They have with others the same passions $or party( $or power( and the privile.e o$ their corps/ Their ma7im is boni 2udicis est ampliare 2urisdictionem A.ood 2ustice is broad 2urisdictionB( and their power the more dan.erous as they are in o$$ice $or li$e and not responsible( as the other $unctionaries are( to the elective control/ The Constitution has erected no such sin.le tribunal( ;nowin. that to whatever hands con$ided( with the corruptions o$ time and party( its members would become despots/ 4t has more wisely made all the departments co:e-ual and co:soverei.n within themselves/ 8hen the le.islative or e7ecutive $unctionaries act unconstitutionally( they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity/ The e7emption o$ the 2ud.es $rom that is -uite dan.erous enou.h/ 4 ;now o$ no sa$e depository o$ the ultimate powers o$ the society( but the people themselves/1 C Thomas "e$$erson to 8illiam C/ "arvis( +D)*/ M# +E:)'' Althou.h the 2udicial branch( as with all branches o$ .overnment( $orever see;s new authority and power throu.h court decisions such as those claimed in Marbury v. Madison( neither the te7t nor the intent o$ the Constitution provide the 2udiciary with any such powers( and the !ill o$ Ri.hts provides the states and the people speci$ic protections a.ainst such abuses/ 8ith re.ard to the two Supreme Court cases cited in the sub2ect Memorandum( United States v. Peters( and Osborn v. an! of the United States( it is the common le.al standard that when citin. other cases( they must be parallel in nature/ As neither o$ the cases -uoted in the Memorandum are even remotely parallel in nature to the constitutionally .rounded powers a$$irmed in the !alance o$ %owers Act( the cases cited are entirely irrelevant/ Last( the Memorandum itsel$( alon. with the historical constitutional $indin.s presented in this rebuttal( provide a very .ood understandin. as to why it is necessary $or the states to ta;e the actions de$ined in the !alance o$ %owers Act today/ The statement at the end o$ the Memorandum is chillin. < 04 have been unable to identi$y another avenue to chec; $ederal authority without encounterin. these issues that would arise under e7istin. Supreme Court precedent/1 8e are not aware o$ any Supreme Court decisions which spea; directly to a states ri.ht to

NorthAmericanLawCenter.org

neutrali=e unconstitutional $ederal laws( rules( procedures( policies( e7ecutive orders or mandates/ 4n closin.( o$ course 0constitutional1 laws made in %ursuance thereo$( are protected by the 0Supremacy Clause1 $ound in Art/ 34( Section )/ The issue at hand is the 0unconstitutional acts1 o$ the $ederal .overnment and the states +*th Amendment Ri.ht to re2ect such acts at the state line/ The !alance o$ %owers Act is care$ully cra$ted( ta;en directly $rom constitutional te7t/ As such( it is not possible $or the le.islation to be 0unconstitutional(1 thou.h we have little doubt that there are some in the $ederal .overnment who will ma;e this $alse claim/ 8e are prepared to de$end a.ainst those $alse claims/ 4$ the $ederal .overnment operates within constitutional boundaries o$ scope and authority( there is no dispute/ !ut when the $ederal .overnment acts beyond its constitution scope and authority( it is the ri.ht o$ the people and the duty o$ state .overnment to chec; such actions and protect the peace( liberty and happiness o$ the people/ Respect$ully(

Stephen %id.eon Attorney at Law( %/S/ Old Federal !uildin. ,**) Colby Avenue( Suite ,*F #verett( 8ashin.ton GD)*+ HI)EJ F*E:I''I HtelJ I)EJD+D:E,'+ H$a7J

NorthAmericanLawCenter.org