Public Comment - County Commissioners - 6-4-2024

Public Comment given to County Commissioners on "Anti-Commandeering Doctrine" as part of a group effort with the Buncombe County Committee of Safety (BCCoS) to address 5G, "trespassing technologies", and the encroachment of 'smart cities' to local community. Comment also applicable to SARS2 'Vaccines' and designation of spike as a biologic agent/toxin.

Link to beginning of BCCoS speakers on the subject: https://youtu.be/5V5qHvTVQoo?si=W9xB45coLdNkEsSi&t=2368

Transcript of Comment:

The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, to wit:

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, states in his opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012):

“The legitimacy of Congress’s exercise of the spending power “thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.’”” Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981) “Respecting this limitation is critical to ensuring that Spending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system. That system “rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that ‘freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.’”” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. 211 (quoting Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999)) “For this reason, “the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.”” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) “Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.”

Any and all so-called laws passed that could be used to harm the American People are void ab initio and their making is treasonous.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the federal government cannot commandeer state and local resources for its own purposes. Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, states are sovereign entities and can direct their resources as they see fit.

The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment10/anti commandeering-doctrine

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

Hence, the idea that we here in Buncombe county have no power to reject or recourse to resist the unjust laws of the federal government are completely erroneous.