Welcome to Unalienable Rights Foundation!

· Home
· AvantGo
· Content
· Downloads
· Members_List
· Stories_Archive
· Surveys
· Top
· Topics
· Web_Links

     What Are/Is

The Unalienable Rights Foundation

Inalienable Rights

Dillon Rule

Citizens Guide - Impeachment

     Random Headlines

Gun Rights
[ Gun Rights ]

·Unlawful Search when Cops Count Bullets in your GUN's Magazine
·Jefferson on Arms for Self Defense
·Roberts Court faces major takings challenge with huge potential liability for go
·UARF provided key evidence that allowed Moore to Walk Free & Exercise 2nd Amd. R
·The Future of the Right to Keep
·Concealed carry and fingerprinting VA
·VA Regulation of transportation of a loaded rifle or shotgun
·VA Limitations on authority of localities to bring lawsuits on guns or ammo
·Virginia ~ Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmen


What is a UARF Fellow 

     CNN LAW
·Court upholds limits on Navy sonar training
·Slain wife accuses husband from the grave
·Prosecutors drop parent-killing case
·Priest accused of lying in mob investigation
·Inmate shot dead after brazen escape
·Juror: Judge and jury pressured me to convict
·Man convicted for Internet hoax death
·Zoloft killer's 30-year sentence appealed
·Girl who shielded mom is a hero at school
·Holloway disappearance hits cold case file


     Instructions For Replying to Our FOIA


Instructions for Responding to
Our FOIA Request to You Click Below

Unalienable Rights Foundation: Letters and Request

Search on This Topic:   
[ Go to Home | Select a New Topic ]

 Letter sent to Gov. Robert F. McDonnell ;with a cc: to UARF;

Letters and Request

Letter sent to Gov. Robert F. McDonnell ;with a cc: to UARF;

Mouse over and Click Gov. Wilder's Photo to see report 

Former Governor and the Most Honorable Douglas Wilder, Esq.


Governor and the Honorable Robert F. McDonnell, Esq.

Prioritize transportation if it is a priority, then cut spending on the other items, there is enough money in our treasury for transportation and the needs (not wants) of government here. There is no need to raise taxes. Especially not in regionalistic ways or overall rather than user-based with sunset. Make use of Gov Wilder's Commission Report (tasked by Gov Warner). I attach it for your convenience. This would enable spending cuts approved by at least some democrats while not raising taxes and perhaps even finding another surplus, which, this time, could go toward transportation.

Republicans seem bent on self-destruction, and in an election year, why give the other team the fuel? Or is it true what some say, that republicans and democrats are the same, they all want to tax us now and there's really nothing we can do about it but shut up and keep working.

Meanwhile, Virginia's (America's) founding fathers roll in their graves that we would threaten property rights, the very basis of our freedom and prosperity. Root out the UN Agenda 21 bills and trash them. Become a hero: No UN Agenda 21 in our state. Virginia encourages small business, not incentivizing big business by taxpayer giveaways! That's the kind of thing we all want to hear.

We're doing OK on the gun bills, but just for the record, tell Virginia you understand: When seconds count, police are minutes away. They need us to be able to defend ourselves. Tell our federal government that not one of our Virginia law enforcement officers will turn on OUR citizens. They are sworn to protect, not round them up at the pleasure of our current administration. This is not a communist regime. In America, we have Due Process. We have Habeas Corpus. We have Posse Comitatus. Let's return Virginia to the rule of law and set an example for the other states.

And for God's sake get rid of the drones. If government has them, then citizens are entitled to have them, just as with guns.

No expansion of Medicare…and the resulting influx of more voting nontaxpayers moving to our state for the benefits of a TWO BILLION dollar expansion of taxes (what HB880 has been reduced to) by Sen Stosch's amendment. Do not allow this to happen to us.

Stand against the Constitutional Convention idea that ignores fact that states would have no control over what our Congress, with its 9% approval rating, would do for expensive years or decades of deciding who chairs, who rules, who votes and whether to hold the convention annually in Dubai.

Step up to the podium and tell us you are representing us, not the expansion of government, already unaffordable, and stop giving our money to Obamacare-crony companies and other special interests. We hunger for a powerful sign from our state leader that we will not tolerate the tyranny that comes at us from all directions this year.

Cary Nunnally
Newport News VA

Posted by Editor on Thursday, February 14 @ 05:06:41 MST (4069 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 5)

 Census Survey "I choose not to participate"

Letters and Request

Census Survey

"I choose not to participate" 



I had a conversation with this lady this morning and could not address her questions. Any thoughts on this US Census survey and its requirements?



Hi Robert,

Nice talking with you.

I received the first Census Survey form about a month ago and didn't send it back.
I received a second one about two weeks ago and returned it with "I choose not to participate" written on the unfilled out form. The Census Bureau has called me twice this week and I returned the call this morning. I was told that it was mandatory to fill out the form according to Title 13, she said she would mail me a copy of that law. I told her that I would not be filling out the form at any time and was told I HAD TO!

If you need any more information give me a call. 

Thank you,




How timely is this inquiry?

13 U.S.C. contains a lot of provisions.  From what the writer says there is no was to know to what the Govt. is addressing.

The word 'census' is found in two places in the Constitution:

[1] The Constitution of the United States of America

Article 1


Section 9. Limitations upon Powers of Congress. -- The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

 The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

 No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

 No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census [1] or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

 No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

 No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.

 No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

 No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. U.S. Constitution U.S. Con. Art. 1, § 9 (1789).

[2] The Constitution of the United States of America

16th Amendment 

Authorizing Income Taxes. -- The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census [2] or enumeration. U.S. Constitution U.S. Con. 16th Amd. (1913).

This being said we find enumeration in the USC in four places:

Posted by MultumInParvo on Wednesday, May 11 @ 06:55:20 MST (3227 reads)
(Read More... | 20455 bytes more | Score: 5)

 Is Obamacare Constitutional? Short Answer: No.

Letters and Request


Is ObamaCare Constitutional?

18 August 2009

During the Bush administration, many within the dominant culture expressed concern about the constitutionality of detaining several hundred alleged enemy combatants in Guantanamo.

Whenever legal restrictions on abortion are proposed, many express doubt about the constitutionality of interjecting government between patients and their doctors.

But those voices have been mostly silent about the constitutionality of empowering the federal government with decisions over the life, death, and health of three hundred million Americans.

In fact, the constitutional difficulties are profound.  This is certainly so for those who believe the Constitution means what our Founders understood it to mean.  But it is even true for those interested only in modern Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Following are some of the ways in which current health care proposals potentially clash with our nation’s Basic Law:

Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers– eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document.  (The exact number depends on how you count.)  None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories.

To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power.  But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now.  And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go.

The greatest Chief Justice, John Marshall, once wrote that if Congress were to use its legitimate powers as a “pretext” for assuming an unauthorized power, “it would become the painful duty” of the Court “to say that such an act was not the law of the land.”

But health care bills such as the Obama-favored HB 3200 do not even offer a pretext.  The only reference to the Constitution in HB 3200 is a severability clause that purports to save the remainder of the bill if part is declared unconstitutional.  HB 3200 contains no reference to the Commerce Power or to any other enumerated power.

Excessive Delegation. The Constitution “vests” legislative authority  in Congress.  Congress is not permitted to delegate that authority to the executive branch.  This is another realm in which the modern Supreme Court has been lenient, while affirming that there are limits.

Thus, in Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), a unanimous court struck down a delegation of authority that looked much like the delegations in some current health care proposals.

Substantive Due Process. The Substantive Due Process doctrine was not contemplated by the Founders, but the courts have engrafted onto constitutional jurisprudence.  The courts employ this doctrine to invalidate laws they think are unacceptably intrusive of personal liberty or privacy.

The most famous modern Substantive Due Process case is Roe v. Wade, which struck down state abortion laws that intruded into the doctor-patient relationship.  But the intrusion invalidated in Roe was insignificant compared to the massive intervention contemplated by schemes such as HB 3200.  “Global budgeting” and “single-payer” plans go even further, and seem clearly to violate the Supreme Court’s Substantive Due Process rules.

Tenth Amendment. Technically, the Tenth Amendment is merely a declaration that the federal government has no powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.  However, the modern Supreme Court has cited the Tenth Amendment in holding that Congress may not “commandeer” state decision making in the service of federal goals.

It is permissible for Congress to condition grants of funds to the states, if the conditions are related to the funding program and are not “coercive.”  Thus, in 1986 the Court ruled that Congress may, because of highway safety issues, reduce highway grants by five percent to states refusing to raise their drinking ages to 21.

But the mandates that some health care plans would impose on states certainly could be found “coercive,” both because they are excessive (HB 3200, for instance, would withdraw all Public Health Service Act money from non-cooperating states) and because they are unrelated to the program.

A major goal of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is to limit government power, especially federal power.  National health care proposals would increase that power greatly, so it is not surprising that those proposals have constitutional difficulties.

Whatever the merits of federal control of health care, moving in that direction is (as former Justice David Souter might say) a change of “constitutional dimension.”  The proper way to make such a change is not through an ordinary congressional bill.  The proper way is by constitutional amendment.

Rob Natelson
Professor of Law
 The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar.

  (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.

Posted by david on Thursday, August 20 @ 07:00:08 MST (3261 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 5)

 Stop Pelosi's Fast Track of Cap and Trade

Letters and Request Fast track of cap and trade

Fast track of cap and trade. Please make some calls!!

From the Desk of:
Steve Elliott, President, Grassfire.org Alliance (June 18, 2009)

Pelosi and the Democrats are up to their fast-tracking
tricks again.

Pelosi just announced that she wants a House Floor vote
on the cap-and-trade Carbon Tax NEXT WEEK. As a result,
she is forcing several House committees to finish their
work on the massive bill in the next 24 hours.

+ + Need Help Today!

Pelosi is pressing the Agriculture Committee for a vote by
EOD tomorrow. I need your help right now to tell the
Democrats on that committee to STOP FAST-TRACKING THE

Make these phone calls.

Call your Representative and key House leaders and tell them
you oppose the fast-tracking of this massive tax:

Your Representative:

Rep. Markey 202-225-4676

House Speaker Pelosi: 202-225-4188

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer: 202-225-4131

Rep. Collin Peterson (Ag Committee Chair): 202-225-2165

Rep. Tim Holden (Ag Cmmtte Vice Chair): 202-225-5546

We have identified the key members of the Energy and Commerce
> Committee who need to hear from grassroots Americans:

> Rep. Michael Ross (AR) 202-225-3772
> Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA) 202-225-4031
> Rep. G. Butterfield (NC) 202-225-3101
> Rep. Zack Space (OH) 202-225-6265
> Rep. Michael Doyle (PA) 202-225-2135
> Rep. Bart Gordon (TN) 202-225-4231
> Rep. Charles Gonzalez (TX) 202-225-3236
> Rep. Gene Green (TX) 202-225-1688
> Rep.. James Matheson (UT) 202-225-3011
> Rep. Rick Boucher (VA) 202-225-3861
> Rep. Peter Welch (VT) 202-225-4115
> Rep.. Jay Inslee (WA) 202-225-6311

Talking Points:

1. I am disappointed that Speaker Pelosi is rushing the
cap-and-trade Carbon Tax through the Agriculture
Committee and pushing for a floor vote next week.

2. This bill deserves full deliberation and should not be rushed.

3. I oppose the cap-and-trade Carbon Tax. This is an
outrageous power grab by the federal government that
will greatly expand government control and increase
my taxes.

4. Especially in these difficult economic times, Congress
must not pass this tax on the American people!

Once again, the Left is fast-tracking its agenda.

Thanks for taking a stand!

Steve Elliott, President

P.S. Why is Pelosi pushing for the final House Vote by next week?
Vacation, of course! She wants to clear her plate before she goes
on vacation... so that when they return they can fast-track
socialized healthcare. Please take action by faxing Congress now:

Posted by MultumInParvo on Monday, June 22 @ 07:31:19 MST (3547 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 5)

 Abington Tea Party - Success Story of the Unalienable Rights Foundation

Letters and Request Abington Tea Party - Success Story of the Unalienable

To the Unalienable Rights Foundation,

I was privileged to take part in three Tea Parties yesterday, Bristol VA and TN, Kingsport TN and the last one of the day in Abingdon, VA. I would like to thank you for what your organization was able to accomplish through your vigilance in protecting our 1st Amendment rights so that around 500 or more citizens were able to convene in the town of Abingdon to petition our government for a redress of grievances, following the previous denial to assemble made to Tea Party Organizer, Ted Dingler. 

Unfortunately, no government officials chose to attend! Virginia District 9 Congressman Rick Boucher chose to ignore repeated invitations, extended by mail, email and telephone calls. His rebuff did not diminish, however, the celebration of our patriotism and love of God and country. And it certainly did not diminish our peaceable demonstration opposing the unconstitutional course that our lawmakers are embarked upon that threatens the very foundation laid by the Founders.

Thank you for your watchdog spirit and what you were able to do for all of us yesterday.

Sincerely yours,

Catherine Turner
District 9 Coordinator, Virginia Resistance
Grassfire.org / Resistnet

Posted by MultumInParvo on Thursday, April 16 @ 16:19:36 MST (11758 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 5)

 Accomack County's Efforts in Conservation

Letters and Request Accomack County violation of Dillon Rule

Accomack County, Virginia County Attorney Mark Taylor emailed us to address the position we had previously taken on the County's Chesapeake / Atlantic Preservation Overlay District [CAPOD]. Taylor wrote:

UARF - I have had a brief opportunity to read your e-mail regarding countywide application of the Bay Act. Accomack County harbors no intent or desire to violate any law.  Virginia law enables localities to adopt this law on a locality-wide basis. It is well-established that there is no partial taking in VA, and there is no apparent or envisioned instance in which the enactment would effect a complete taking. With these observations in mind, your concerns about Dillon's Rule and takings issues appear unfounded.

Mark Taylor
County Attorney

Our response to Mr. Taylor ~~

Mr. Taylor:

Thank you for writing and expressing your concerns.  Please note that UARF revised its position on the CAPOD and posted that revision in the early PM this Friday.   That revision reads:

Posted by david on Friday, October 31 @ 20:01:54 MST (3361 reads)
(Read More... | 4493 bytes more | Score: 5)

 T A B O R

Letters and Request New Page 1

Today we celebrate the anniversary of the signing of our Declaration of Independence from British rule.  Most of the Declaration is a justification for that separation, but the second paragraph states the theory of government on which our Nation’s Founders, men well schooled in history and reason, sought to build a new and enlightened form of governance for our country, in clear and eloquent language that has not been matched since: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  

That’s it. Governments are to be created by the governed, for the purpose of securing their rights. No more, and no less.  Governments are not created to make us better people; to tell us what to eat, what drugs our physicians may prescribe, how or whom we love, or what kind of car we drive. Further, governments are not created to feed us, shelter us, and solve our personal problems, to wipe our noses, or tuck us in at night. 

Government exists only to secure our rights to make those choices and do those things for ourselves. When government tries to do more, it does so at the expense of our rights, destroying that which it is created to protect. No better example can be offered than the recent decision by the Supreme Court to allow governments to take property from one citizen to give it to some more favored citizen in hopes of accomplishing some greater social good. 

Most of today’s citizens are unaware that the phrase “the pursuit of happiness” was, at the time of the Declaration, a euphemism for the private ownership of property, and idea so radical at the time that liberal thinkers dared not state it directly. In those days, ownership of property was by grace of the King, who could revoke that ownership as he saw fit. 

The recent decision by the Supreme Court on the use of eminent domain strips us of that right of the pursuit of happiness and returns us to the era where our ownership of property is only by grace of the government. How much longer will it be before they go after life and liberty as well? 

What do we do? Read what follows in that paragraph. 

 --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

It is our duty, as free people, to set what has gone wrong in our government right.

Don Tabor
Chesapeake, VA

Posted by MultumInParvo on Tuesday, July 05 @ 14:55:09 MST (6655 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 5)

 Is Buyer’s Remorse Reason for C.U.S. Article 4 §4 Claim

Letters and Request

Is Buyer’s Remorse Reason for C.U.S. Article 4 §4 Claim

Editor's note: On Saturday, April 30, 2005, The President and the Executive Secretary of the Unalienable Rights Foundation [URF] were the guest of Shu Barthomew's radio program On The Commons. URF received via Shu an inquiry from one of Shu's listeners. That inquiry and our response is found below.

You have called upon the kind offices of Shu Barthomew, host and producer of radio program On The Commons to forward to us your e-mail in which you wrote:

I've read that no challenge to Article 4 Section 4 (US - the republican form of government clause) has ever been successful in the history of the US constitution. But never before in our history has our right to a "republican form of government" been trampled as with these adhesion contracts created by merchants of mass-produced housing.

Posted by MultumInParvo on Monday, May 16 @ 01:31:45 MST (4107 reads)
(Read More... | 15037 bytes more | Score: 5)

 Comments on Article 4 Section 4 of US Constitution

Letters and Request

Editor's note:  On Saturday, April 30, 2005, The President and the Executive Secretary of the Unalienable Rights Foundation [URF] were the guest of Shu Barthomew's radio program On The Commons.  URF received via Shu an inquiry from one of Shu's listeners. That inquiry is found below.

Shu - I'd be honored if your guests today would read my comments (below) and perhaps comment on the feasibility of the class action suit I suggest here.  I've read that no challenge to Article 4 Section 4 (US - the republican form of government clause) has ever been successful in the history of the US constitution.  But never before in our history has our right to a "republican form of government" been trampled as with these adhesion contracts created by merchants of mass-produced housing. 

The largest housing mills in history - in collusion with the CAI's army of management contract creators - conscript each new "neighborhood" into a widely promulgated adhesion contract that deliberately circumvents our "inalienable rights".  The allegation that we surrendered our Constitution in exchange for simple housing may as well be an accusation of treason against WE THE PEOPLE.  The accusers should be shot for such stupidity, IMO!!! 

Posted by MultumInParvo on Saturday, May 14 @ 19:31:31 MST (4066 reads)
(Read More... | 1748 bytes more | Score: 5)

 Reverter or Quia Emptores [Gray, Peretuties(Second Edition)]

Letters and Request

Unalienable Rights Foundation
Message: 5-1-2005

Shu with the On The Commons program suggested I contact you about my HOA lawsuit.

It is a unique case and I am trying to find other court cases that I can provide to our lawyer which back my way of thinking that our HOA would need a 100% approval from the membership to agree to go back to being under the control of a developer after the original time period had expired.  Also, through a 2/3 vote of amending our CC&Rs our association is trying to get our owners in our subdivision to agree to be subjected to a Declaration that was written for a Planned Unit Development being built next to our subdivision.   If our CC&Rs can be amended, they are saying we will ultimately be sub-associations under a master association. 

Posted by MultumInParvo on Monday, May 02 @ 16:58:24 MST (3105 reads)
(Read More... | 4517 bytes more | Score: 5)

     T R A N S L A T I O N S
Translations Language
Helpcom Spanish Spanish

Helpcom French

 Helpcom German German
Helpcom Italian Italian

     Categories Menu
There isn't content right now for this block.

     Big Story of Today
There isn't a Biggest Story for Today, yet.

     Old Articles
There isn't content right now for this block.

     US Supreme Court Today

301 Moved Permanently

" target="new">301 Moved Permanently




     Is What I Got From UARF from UARF?
Is what you got really from UARF

Web site powered by Web Hosting USA

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © MM - MMXIII by the UnAlienable Rights Foundatation.

WWW http://www.uarf.us

You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php or ultramode.txt
Copyright, MMVIII, Unalienabe Rights Foundation (UARF), All Rigths Reserved
Page Generation: 0.87 Seconds