Chief Justice

@TenthAmendment Until we stop letting @SCOTUS circumvent the amendment process by judicial decree (like they did in England, which we separated from), they will keep reading in exceptions that are nowhere found in the Constitution, just like the one you pointed out.

The constitution doesn't say the president can wage a war without approval from congress as long as it's 60 days or less That's made up trash.

@LWH132 @acce_usa We are thankful for your trust in fighting the despots. We cannot end the tyranny without brave people like yourself, who will not bend a knee, and insist on fighting for what is right. #JacyStrong

@USChiefJustice @acce_usa Forever grateful to have yall with me!

I know many of you are waiting! What was scheduled for one hour turned into an all afternoon hearing. Thankfully, they didn’t overbook their docket today so we had plenty of time! 🙏 The team behind this was absolutely amazing! Truly, I am SO proud of all of us. I took the stand for the first time today. This same judge has looked at this case 4 times, and today is the first time she has heard me speak…I just hope she heard me. We will most likely hear an official ruling by the end of the week. And I will absolutely update as soon as we do! Thank you all so much for reaching out, praying, and thinking of us throughout today. I kno that I carried every single one of those with me into that room today.❤️ #pma #rawmilk #farmersrights #privatemembershipassociation #foodfreedom #fightforfoodfreedom #constitutionalrights

@IJ Yes, but that has the potential to catch them doing what we want to ignore so we can sleep peacefully in ignorance.

Fighting for the right to film the police isn’t anti-police, it’s pro-accountability.

@TodayUpdates0 👍

🚨 Texas Rep. Chip Roy dropped a political nuke: “At some point people will look at this body and say, maybe we should get rid of all 435 members of the House and all 100 members of the Senate and start over because Congress is literally failing the American people.” Do you firmly support Chip Roy on this? A. Huge Yes B. No IF Yes, Give me a THUMBS-UP👍!! MAKE THIS GO VIRAL ON 𝕏. LET’S GO 👏

This video will change your life‼️

To everyone out there that thinks because a statute exists, that it must be the valid law. Please watch this and maybe, just maybe, you can free yourself from the despotism that you currently live under. youtu.be/5AliJBStaZ0

@elonmusk Please consider @acce_usa as a possible recipient when you win! They are a great charity fighting back against a judiciary weaponized against the people.

Btw, the proceeds of any legal victory in the OpenAI case will be donated to charity. I will in no way enrich myself.

Being right isn't enough. We show our work. We cite the law. We lay it out as plainly as 2+2=4. And they say no - no logic, just...no. They disregard the law. Openly. Blatantly. Because somewhere along the way, they stopped serving the people and started protecting the system.

@TenthAmendment 1 Samuel described the same thing. When God told Samuel to warn the people of what would happen if they insisted on having a King.

The trifecta of tyranny. James Madison warned us. We didn’t listen.  “Armies and debts and taxes are the known instruments for putting the many under the domination of a few”

@TAM_Memphis Laws should be black and white, and not need people in black robes to "interpret". I completely agree. Do you not consider the Constitution the supreme law of the land that Congress must follow? Semantics matter, and you cited the war powers resolution as if it were valid law, it's not, unless statutes are on the same level as the Constitution. Only if you prematurely stop the analysis at the statute can you justify saying Massie is wrong as the Constitution requires congressional approval, not "consultation" if there is time. This may take the conversation down a path you were not intending, but it is a fundamental part of what you are trying to assert. (Assuming that you are not just a rage bait poster. However, if you are then yeah it's a different conversation.)

@TheCJ_Rudder @RepThomasMassie I'm not confused about anything. There was no assertion, just the facts regarding Massie's claim. If you want to argue SCOTUS rulings and semantics, that's a different conversation. As far as I'm concerned, laws should be black and white and not open to "interpretation".

Acts of war unauthorized by Congress. The U.S. is attacking Iran according to AP. apnews.com/article/iran-u…

Supporting Agricultural Freedom and Small Farms - Episode 12 | Like Wildflowers Homestead

If a man stops arguing it means..

@TAM_Memphis the flaw in your assertion is that acts of war can take place without Congress. The War powers act is a Statute passed by Congress and signed by a former president. However, that does not make it constitutionally compliant. Commander and Chief does not mean that he can INITIATE a war. Your confusion however is understandable, with the erroneous Supreme Court decisions that are out there.

Just stop. Stop right now. You are COMPLETELY wrong. Let's keep this straightforward and stick strictly to the law. The War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148, codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548) governs this. First, on consultation: Under 50 U.S.C. § 1542, the President "in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." This is a requirement to consult where possible, but it is not a requirement for prior approval or even prior notification in all cases. The law uses "shall consult... before" but qualifies it with "in every possible instance," recognizing that some situations demand immediate action as Commander-in-Chief. Second, on notification and approval: The key provision is 50 U.S.C. § 1543(a) (Section 4 of the Resolution). It states: "In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced— (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances... the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing," detailing the circumstances, the constitutional and legislative authority, and the estimated scope and duration. Notice: This is a post-action report—within 48 hours after the introduction of forces—not before. The law does not require the President to get congressional approval or even notify Congress in advance before taking military action. As Commander-in-Chief (Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution), the President has authority to act swiftly in response to threats or to protect U.S. interests and forces, and the Resolution preserves that while adding oversight afterward. Third, the clock: Under 50 U.S.C. § 1544(b), forces must be withdrawn after 60 days (plus up to 30 more for safe withdrawal) unless Congress declares war, enacts specific authorization, or extends the period. This is the mechanism for congressional check—after the fact—not a prior veto. In short: The President does not need congressional approval or prior notification to initiate military action under the War Powers Resolution. The law requires consultation when possible, a detailed report within 48 hours after committing forces to hostilities, ongoing periodic reports, and automatic termination after 60–90 days without congressional authorization. That's the statute—plain text, no more, no less. Respect the facts of the law we all operate under. As a member of Congress, this is shit that you should know. You motherfuckers are REALLY confused about the power you actually have. President Trump CANNOT trust any of you traitors with sensitive information. GET OVER YOURSELF. You are NOT in control and CLEARLY do NOT know the law. This speaks VOLUMES about your idea of what your job actually is. You work for us, retard. DO YOUR FUCKING JOB.

I'm definitely the last guy.

@TheAKGuy @ErikaC47 @TheAKGuy a lot of Massie's issues that he won't compromise on are fundamental and principled. Not agreeing to waive notice of a vote is a fundamental issue that he should not have waived, and should be applauded for. Otherwise it could be weaponized to pass bad bills.

@ErikaC47 Where I differ from Massie is not letting “perfect” be the enemy of “good.” I love his staunch defense of the 2A, and his understanding of the debt crisis. What I don’t agree with is unilaterally obstructing or killing bills that are 97% good, because of a 3% disagreement.

Calling for your resignation over something you objectively did (and then lied about on camera to cover up) isn’t a “political attack.” It’s called accountability.

I would clarify, if law enforcement is acting lawfully, then comply. But just because they are doing what they are ordered to do, does not inherently mean their order to you is a lawful order, otherwise the Nazi trials would have gone a lot differently. Just saying.

@mybakedequation @RepAndyBiggsAZ I think you are correct, based on the footage that I've been able to watch.

@RepAndyBiggsAZ Andy everyone has seen the tapes. He was not interfering with anything. He stepped in to protect a woman who was shoved to the ground by ice. Everyone has seen the tapes.

It’s a simple concept: don’t interfere with law enforcement officers. Every American has the right to protest peacefully. Interference and obstruction are not pillars of a peaceful protest.

@SantaCawws If you've served your time and pose no threat to society you should have ALL of your rights restored. If you can't be trusted, you shouldn't be out of jail.

@Farmer_Shane91 Stop falling for the propaganda that tries to get you to villainize your neighbors so that you can feel like their killing is absolutely justified. Was Alex a terrorist, not that I've seen. Have OTHERS acted in a way to likely deserve to be arrested? Very likely. But LEOs don't get to go around assaulting loudmouth people like they did to the women in the video. Intervening to try and protect someone from what looks to be an officer who has lost control of their emotions and retaliating against the women is not something worthy of being labeled as a terrorist. Regain control over your emotions and see what he did looks like what chivalrous men do to stand up for women and those in need. If officers don't calm down and take a breath when someone points out that they are over reacting, and they are told they are untouchable even when they go overboard (like what happened here), people will stop trying to get the LEOs stop peacefully (like what Alex did, and yes that is "peaceful" compared to the alternatives). Your emboldening of officers to continue to act like that will only lead to despotism or a warlike revolt, and I don't think that is what you truly desire, is it?

@TenthAmendment I’m not sure that ICE agents being allowed to defend themselves from terrorists is really all that oppressive.

Thomas Paine was right. And most Americans are dangerously ignorant about the principles of the Founders and Old Revolutionaries. "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -Thomas Paine