Charles Key: A Constitutional Republic
30. Jun, 2009 
26 Comments
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Charles Key, State Representative from Oklahoma’s 90th District, discusses Oklahoma’s 10th Amendment Resolution, the Constitution and limits on the federal government’s power, the long-standing abuses of the constitution no matter which administration or party is in power, bailouts and real id as unconstitutional, why it’s urgent to act now, the OK gubernatorial campaign, the Firearms Freedom Act, and the constitution – not the federal government – as the source of law in the United States.
Mentioned in this Show:
Oklahoma Sovereignty Resolution
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Key isn’t particularly inclined to toot his own horn, but I’m pretty sure that he introduced a version of the current Tenth Amendment Resolution back during his first stint in the Oklahoma House. Of course he was way, way ahead of his time then.
As far as the makeup of the Oklahoma legislature goes, Rep. Key is right that the Republicans have taken control of both houses. Indeed, for the first time in our history as a state has this happened, which is a notable bit of trivia. Oklahoma has always been populated by conservative people, though. But the people began to see that the democrats had abandoned all principle in this state, as well as to abandon any modicum of conservatism, which the people are by and large. So we started removing them a few at a time. And if the Republicans make the same mistake, woe unto them.
Anyway, I like the way Key answered the critics and naysayers: it’s an official resolution which implies further action.
I should also mention, now that it occurs to me, that you made a great point, Michael, when you mentioned that government closer to home is much easier to control. I would simply add to that observation that the federal government, in its original design, did not, as a whole system, lend itself to the direct democratic involvement of the people. What we’re seeing happening now with people improperly being more directly involved in the operation of the federal government, is simply a testament to the wisdom of the founding fathers in depriving them of that ‘right’ and that responsibility. No; part of the function of the state governments — indeed, one of the main functions of the state governments — is to act as the people’s agents with regard to the federal government. But we’ve got this whole system way out of whack. Re-establishment of Balanced Constitutional Government is the key to everything.
Thanks for the feedback, Terry. It truly was an honor to interview this great patriot!
If the officers of the government have overstepped their lawful bounds, and refuse to step back, then by what authority do they any longer claim to govern?
They can claim only the authority granted by the coercive force they may bring to bear. They are nothing but armed criminals, intruding in the affairs of the people.
When your home is invaded by robbers who threaten death and mayhem on you should you fail to comply quickly with their unlimited demands, you have a choice to make. You can choose to comply or you can resist. But what manner of fool, choosing to resist, will resist with nothing but declarations of the criminality of what the robbers do?
That is the last, pathetic refuge of one who is helpless to either resist or comply. When the robbers, having taken everything, demand what you no longer have to give them, and you have no other means to defend yourself, then you resort to pleas for reason and justice. To what avail? They have already set aside such concerns in deciding to become robbers. You beg for mercy from the robber because you have no other possible recourse, not because there is even the slightest hope of success.
You. Must. Resist.
Either that, or comply without protest.
By the way, I am one who refuses to obey any “law” proclaimed only by the authority of those who refuse to obey any laws themselves. If you know anyone who might have a problem with that, please forward this information to them with my personal invitation to express their objections in person.
Terry – If I didn’t know something better of you, I would be very suspicious right now, that you may have secretly obtained, one of those newly fangled pneumatic nail drivers. Lol
We the people must never abandon our rights, to examine, for ourselves, our closest public servants.
Bravo! – Chiu Chun-Ling
Hey, Chiu Chun-Ling, you forgot to announce your address. lol
Chiu, are you over here beating the drums of war again?
Just as Key said in the interview, time is of the essence. We no longer have five, ten, twenty years. But I don’t care what you say, this movement is both meaningful and necessary. Our revolutionary forefathers didn’t all of a sudden rise up against a tyrannous government and declare their independence without having already taken a whole host of previous (peaceful) steps. No; the DoI was the last declaration in a long series of declarations, resolutions, proclamations, public gatherings, protest marches, letters of remonstrance transmitted to the seat of government, etc., etc., etc… What we have here is virtually the exact same thing. And are you going to argue that they were weakened by it all? Your example of a home invasion doesn’t quite work because it’s not the same thing. Now, I just happen to be one of those people that, if you dare invade my home you can expect to get a bullet in the head for your trouble. I’ll shoot and ask questions later. Period. I’ll even take it one further than that, if you dare come into my neighborhood with a gun and start shooting the place up while I’m in the neighborhood, you’ve just dug your own grave as far as I’m concerned. But that’s not what has happened here, and you know it. The federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds, yes, but the people have been complicit in all of it up until very recently.
JMB, yeah, I got several of ‘em.
If by resist, you mean non-violently, I’m all for it. Peaceful resistance is the only path to liberty. People like Jefferson, St. George Tucker, and others, believed that the way to rein in the federal government was by pushing states to resist – to say no – to nullify.
It’s the peaceful path to constitutional government. Kudos to Charles Key for taking the lead in this modern movement for freedom!
Peaceful resistance is the only path to liberty.
Well, I definitely can’t agree with that. I’m no expert on the opinions of Charles Key, but I know enough about him to know that he doesn’t believe it either. Nor did Jefferson. Can’t say about St. Charles Tucker.
The American Revolution wasn’t by any means “peaceful resistance.” Yet it was the ultimate path our forefathers took to regain and re-establish liberty. It was the pathway that was forced upon them, but it was the pathway they ultimately took nonetheless.
Terry, I strongly feel that the only way things will get better is through peaceful, non-violent resistance.
As soon as some idiot starts shootin’ it up, then the government will just do more of what it does best – crushing things.
That will not help our cause. Period.
Nullification – as proposed by Jefferson and the rest – is a solution short of the extreme measures of secession or violent revolution.
I strongly oppose calls for violence – and calls for such are wholly unwelcome on this website.
One more point on the “violence” talk here – which is not tolerated.
Often times those that are making threats – either veiled or direct – are what’s referred to as “agents provocateurs”:
Charles Key has clear stated the right path. 1. Give Notice 2. Pass laws that directly resist the federal government.
When enough people support moves like this, there’s no need for any #3, or #4, or anything else. Real ID is our blueprint – 2 dozen states refused to comply with a federal law and there’s no need for violence, or death, or destruction of property.
The feds have no choice – they have to back off. Will it work every time? Of course not…
Terry – you make an important point about all the many “previous” moves that the founders took, which were peaceful. We’re in the very early stages of such moves, and I do believe that the house of cards that is the US federal government won’t be able to withstand mass resistance.
I strongly oppose calls for violence – and calls for such are wholly unwelcome on this website.
You think I’m calling for violence because I acknowledge that a ‘velvet revolution’ isn’t the only path to liberty? I understand your rules, and I respect them. But I assure you, the rule itself has very little to do with my observing it. I don’t call for violence on my own site, much less yours.
Terry, you misunderstood me.
I guess that’s what happens when I try to respond to more than one issue in a single comment…
I didn’t intend to make any claim that you are making the threats…veiled or otherwise! I appreciate your input and perspective on this.
Okay Michael, thank you for clarifying. And my apologies for being quick to misunderstand. It happens to the best of us I guess.
If they haven’t got my address by now, I figure they don’t deserve to know it.
I’m not calling for violence. I’m calling for resistance. I’m calling for actual, active, noncompliance with illegal demands by those who claim the power of government. If they impose taxes or fines illegally, does part of your protest include refusing to hand over the money? If they issue injunctions, do you meet their demands even while complaining of the illegality of them?
When violence does come to my door, it will be initiated by those pretending to act under color of law. But I will not be tricked into believing that my response to that violence is somehow unlawful. Wicked, self-indulgent, manifestly unchristian in character…yes. I have turned the other cheek before, and that without protest. I have spoken on behalf of others injured by the actions of the lawless, to no avail.
So now I speak against any further injury to myself, and back my statements with my unwillingness to further comply with the fraudulent imposition of those who themselves are in defiance of the laws. I will not comply, even when they attempt to force my compliance. Let them pry what they claim from my cold, dead hands, if they can.
This is not a threat. This is my response to their threats. I refuse to comply with their demands, and thus I challenge them to make good on their threats. But let there be no misunderstanding. While I have no intention of being the one to resort to violence, I will respond.
Before, I have spoken as though this applied to myself alone. I have said to others, prudence, patience, peace. But the time for that has ended. Make your declarations against the unlawful actions of the usurpers. That is well and good. But back those words with real preparation to resist the forceful impositions of these impostors. Do not protest while obediently meeting every letter of their demands. Refuse with works the authority you refute with words.
Otherwise, your words are meaningless and they are well justified in ignoring them. You have spoken and written and expostulated and pleaded for nearly a hundred years now…but you have always meekly obeyed every order, no matter how outrageous. Is it any wonder that they ignore what you say? It is mere noise, it foretells no actual event.
If you would have law, you must uphold it yourselves. Continuing to assist criminals with their activities rather than taking a stand may have bought you safety for a season in the past, but it will no longer. I cannot uphold the law. I can only follow it. Whether or not I would that you had preserved a law for me to obey, it matters no longer.
If you indeed reinstate the rule of law…I will abide it. But until you are willing to take practical responsibility for the enforcement of the law, your words are nothing but the hollow echoes of my own lament for the destruction of the law.
Chiu,
You’re not a “Free-stater” are you? I have to admit that I sometimes go to some of their You Tube boards for cheap entertainment. Very few things warms my heart more than to see them instruct law enforcement officers … on the law. I’ve had a couple or three little run-ins like that myself. I just don’t carry a video camera with me everywhere I go.
I agree with Michael, we do have peaceful options left, principally the use of the state to fight our battle. This is conditioned on our ability within our respective states to make the legislators and Governor enforce the statements as set forth in their sovereignty resolutions.
In my opinion we can not win as individuals or even groups, the only entity I see that has the latent energy to roll back the unconstitutional federal mandates is a state, or better yet a coalition of states.
I challenge anyone to come up with a more realistic strategy than using the 10th Amendment, commerce clause, and nullification by the states. If you do accept my challenge, please come up with a realistic alternative. I have read to many schemes and opinions of “what ought to be done “, based on pure fantasy.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but as for me, I think that all of this soul searching, as well as these words of frustration, have all become unfortunately damn necessary, as well as are Michael’s cautionary words.
I hope that my initial compliments, to you Terry, and to Chiu, have not been somehow lost, because of my own feeble attempts, at humor.
This federal government is currently using bailout money to intimidate, and pay off private corporations.
It doesn’t not get much more serious the this guys.
Actually, it gets quite a bit more serious, and rather quickly. But I think I get what you mean. For what it’s worth, I support the state sovereignty movement…morally, anyway.
I recently came across a Wikipedia page on voter turnout that contained the following rather stupid claim.
“[Voter turnout] causes a difficulty for rational choice theory, in that it seems that a rational individual should not vote. Studies using game theory, which takes into account the ability of voters to interact, have also found that the expected turnout for any large election should be zero.
The basic formula for determining whether someone will vote is
PB + D > C
Here, P is the probability that an individual’s vote will affect the outcome of an election, and B is the perceived benefit of that person’s favored political party or candidate being elected. D originally stood for democracy or civic duty, but today represents any social or personal gratification an individual gets from voting. C is the time, effort, and financial cost involved in voting. Since P is virtually zero in most elections, PB is also near zero, and D is thus the most important element in motivating people to vote. For a person to vote, these factors must outweigh C.”
Apparently, whatever genius thought up this equation didn’t notice that governments forcibly extract vast sums of money from the populace and then spend that money on favored groups. In America, B can reach into the trillions of dollars (plus little things like not being killed by terrorists or keeping one’s rights among other things). That means that the value of an individual vote would have to be pretty low to not be worth thousands of dollars in political leverage.
And of course, people don’t vote as individuals, they vote in a cooperative (usually coordinated) effort with millions of other voters attracted to given candidates. These “rational choice” geniuses might have noticed that their theories can’t explain any cooperative effort where an individual cannot accomplish anything alone…like moving a piano (okay, some people can do that alone, but it’s a lot harder). A few thousand (or million) people voting as a bloc can have a huge influence on an election (as an Asian, I get regular emails explaining this to me…the problem is that they come from an uber-left group determined to make the U.S. subservient to Communist China).
I don’t want anything to do with those Beijing #@(*er’s, and that includes their puppets in D.C. (my birthplace, incidentally).
I guess the point of all this is that…most people don’t know the half of how far things have actually gone. Most people don’t want to know. Heck, I don’t want to know, but I do. The people who have taken control of America’s government are not going to play nice with you. They won’t play fair. They are, in point of fact, not playing with you at all.
Yes, speak out. But understand that words are not enough unless you have the means to back them up. Gadsden (as Franklin explains) chose the rattlesnake as a symbol not merely for its rattle, but for its bite. Without the bite, the rattle is nothing.
With this, perhaps you’ll agree that I have rattled on long enough.
Actually – Chiu, it is be because of these improper, and private, backdoor coercions, that things have gotten so damn serious, and they will get even more so, because of them.
This federal government, by the use of these tactics, have effectively voted to dissolve the people, and elect another.
That’s an interesting way of putting it. But I don’t disagree. Those who now occupy the offices of the United States government know who they truly serve, and it’s not the American people or the Constitution.