Lindsey Springer and the 10th Amendment

   Posted by: BobMcNeil   in IRS

Bob Here is the latest update from Lindsey Springer in which he discusses State sovereignty, the 10th Amendment, and the impact of Bond v. U.S., in which the Supreme Court held that a person has standing to challenge Federal law for violating the principals of Federalism.

Please read on:


From: Lindsey Springer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:22 PM
To: Lindsey Springer
Subject: There is no shared commerce power intraState

Lindsey Springer here wishing each of you reading herein an exceptional, memorable holiday season, Merry Christmas, and Happy, prosperous and revealing 2012.

For many years something has been terribly wrong with the United States Government. God is revealing the truths surrounding the problem. In several cases the Supreme Court has ruled the powers the States transferred away from themselves and to the created “United States” are fixed in the Constitution.

Every possible conceivable subject not delegated by the United States, respectively and collectively, to the United States, was reserved by and for the now 50 Union States, respectively, to regulate as they saw fit. In Garcia v. San Antonio, 469 U.S. 528, 549 (1985) the Supreme Court held the following words:

“The States…retain…sovereign authority…to the extent that the Constitution has not DIVESTED them of their original powers and TRANSFERRED those powers to the Federal Government.”

“Federal Government” means the United States Government acting within the borders of any of the 50 Union Sovereign States while “United States Government” means the Government acting as the exclusive Government of a specific territory.

In New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144, 156 (1992) the high court held:

“if a power is an attribute of State sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Amendment, it is necessarily a power the Constitution has not conferred on Congress.”

Recently, the Supreme Court in Bond v. U.S. 131 S.Ct. 2355 (2011) held a person has standing to challenge Federal law for violating the principals of Federalism explained in both the New York and San Antonio cases cited above.

To make this simple, considering the following. Prior to the Constitution, each State inherently possessed the power to do anything it chose within its borders. The People controlled the boundaries of these places according to their collective will. These places were not called “States” but colonies.

After the Constitution, a few inherent powers were surrendered by these colonies or now “States”, in exchange for a strong national posture with the world, most importantly, England. “If a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States…” New York, at 156.  Whether you are watching the Health Insurance usurpation by the United States now in the Supreme Court, or the Bond case currently on remand to the 3rd Circuit, or the immigration cases whether such issue is local or national concern, or controlled substance act cases like marijuana, they all have the same course or theme.

All power the United States exercises within a State boundary are actions the United States takes on behalf of the State. The power being exercised must be show to be “transferred” in the Constitution to the United States, not just by one State but by all States. If the power is “transferred” to the United States, then the State no longer has that power seen transferred.

State Citizens you must get on board with these cases and not with lower court rulings, or most lawyers (who are an army unto themselves) who have concocted and executed upon such Citizens the unwarranted, unnecessary, and not proper, exercise of Federal power inside any State border. In Ms. Bond’s case, she repeatedly was told she had no standing to challenge Federal Law for violating the Tenth Amendment and her Attorney did not stop. He went against all lower court rulings, appellate court rulings, and was vindicated by a unanimous 9 to 0 ruling he was right.

That decision in Bond relies almost exclusively on the New York decision which relies upon San Antonio which relies upon the words in the Tenth Amendment. Make certain that the Tenth Amendment claims are premised upon the power either remaining with the States, or that that power was transferred out of each State and to the United States. The Tenth Amendment makes it an “either or”. The power is either “delegated” to the United States or “reserved” to the States “respectively” which means individually and collectively. No one State has power reserved that another State surrendered.

Those jurists who conclude “dual sovereignty” is the answer denies the Tenth Amendment’s terms “delegated” and “reserved”. It took the 18th Amendment to allow the United States inside each State to regulate alcohol and in that amendment both the States and the United States shared power to enforce the 18th Amendment. That Amendment was of course repealed.

There is no Amendment for health insurance, drugs, immigration, or chemicals, as was needed to regulate alcohol. The Health Insurance Mandates should be seen by many as a declaration of war by Congress upon the powers reserved by the States under the Tenth Amendment. Any person who argues in support of such usurpation of power is against the Constitution and its words. If they swore to defend the Constitution they are not doing that. Why would anyone need to defend the Constitution you ask?

If Congress simply has to say they are taking control of power under the Commerce Clause over powers reserved by the States generally, they simultaneously have revoked the limited power surrendered to them. They either work within the Constitution, and it remains first and foremost, or they do not. If they do not, all power resorts back to its origin. That happens to be with each State.

Remember, there is no joint or concurrent shared commerce power within each State’s border.

Either one has it and the other does not, or the other has it and the one does not.

God bless you and Please, God bless each State and its Citizenry once again with both grace and mercy.

Lindsey Springer

ps. Thank you for your prayers and support.


Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.


[email protected] or lind…@mindspring.com.

Mailing address for donations (cash only, please) or other inquiries:

5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135

Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):

Lindsey Springer, 02580-063
FCI Big Spring
1900 Simler Ave
Big Spring, TX 79720


Lindsey & Family


Bob McNeil
All About Bob
Phone: 713-806-5199

Tags: , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 11:45 pm and is filed under IRS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)