Calling All Christians and Anyone Who Values the First Amendment

This is something that makes me very, very angry:

Michigan Woman Faces Civil Rights Complaint.

Here is the text to the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Can you see ANY inconsistencies here???

The First Amendment doesn't tell you what youCAN do; it tells the GOVERNMENT what it CANNOT do, and the biggest thing it cannot do is infringe upon your natural rights; natural rights come from God, and cannot be taken away by anything short of force. They can be given away, but they cannot be taken without your consent.
Yet, the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan seems bent on violating the Constitution.

Here is my letter to the city of Grand Rapids; it will likely be tweaked some:

Grand Rapids City Hall
Mayor George Heartwell
300 Monroe Avenue NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2206

Fair Housing Center of West Michigan
Director Nancy Haynes
20 Hall Street SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49507

To Whom it Concerns,

It has come to the attention of freedom loving Constitutionalist everywhere that you plan to violate the First Amendment rights of one of the residents of your beautiful city. I would like to remind you of the text of the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

How do you suppose your case makes any legal sense? Any moral sense?
The resident in question has every, EVERY constitutional right to choose not only who she associates with, but also, what fashion she will practice her religion.

As an American, and as a Christian, I will do everything in my power, with the Internet at my disposal to pass the word, that your fair city is not only unfriendly to the Constitution, but also to Christians if you go forward with this unconstitutional stance. With the speed the Internet affords us, it’s quite possible you will see a drop in tourism numbers as soon as December 1.

Please reconsider the issue; as natural rights are at stake, it’s a losing proposition for the city of Grand Rapids, and for the state of Michigan.


Sincerely,

(my name)
(my city)


Here is the address to the Grand Rapids City Hall; Mayor George Heartwell:

Grand Rapids City Hall
300 Monroe Avenue NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2206

And, the Fair Housing Center; Director Nancy Haynes:

Fair Housing Center of West Michigan
20 Hall Street SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49507


Feel free to use my letter as a template if you wish, but PLEASE, let's flood the Grand Rapids City Hall and the Fair Housing Center with letters.
It is this type of instance where our voices must be heard; the Progressive mindset,the destructive notion of political correctness must be stamped out and our Republic must be restored; one city hall at a time.

Census Quesitons and the Fifth Amendment

As many of you probably guessed, I have some major problems with the way the Census is handling their Constitutional job this time around.
They do not need to know my race or the status of my living arrangements.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:

[Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons]. The Actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years in such a Manner as they shall by Law direct.

The phrase "in such manner as they shall by law direct" refers to the manner in which the Census is executed, NOT what they can ask.
I found a letter on Lew Rockwell's Blog.
I want to warn, that I am not saying that you SHOULD do as this letter writer is espousing, only you can determine the risks for your own actions; however, I will be adopting the plan of stating only the head of household and the number of occupants in the household; this is what the Founding Father's wanted from us, nothing more. As the Blogger stated, anything more, and I'm pleading the Fifth Amendment.
The letter is as follows:

To Whom it May Concern,

Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address. My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)

“Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [such as the Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190. We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life. As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’”

Note: This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.

Respectfully,

A Citizen of the United States of America