Candidate for MT. Attorney General, Shockley, Holds Shocking View of the Constitution


Candidate for Montana Attorney General, Jim Shockley, stated while sitting in his official capacity as Montana Senator that original and true meaning of state sovereignty, as expressed in the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution, was changed and ridded by the Civil War.

Shockley’s position is completely incorrect constitutionally and historically. Moreover, it is dangerous to Montana’s rights and to the liberties of Montanans. Any attorney holding this view of the constitution does not qualify to serve as Montana’s next Attorney General.

I. Montana’s 2012 Attorney General Must Hold Correct View of the U.S. Constitution

Of all people who must understand, respect, and protect the system of federalism prescribed in the United States Constitution, it should be a State’s Attorney General. To qualify for this trusted position, one must know the true meaning, nature, and character of the United States Constitution. As well, he must understand America’s origins of political philosophy to guide his thoughts and conclusions relative to the oath of office to which he swears. Without this, the State will be in jeopardy of losing rights and will have obligations it otherwise would not have. The State would suffer politically, socially, and economically years afterwards.

II. The United States Constitution Requires Use and Protection of State Sovereignty

The United States Constitution established a system of government whereby the States would retain all sovereignty and power not expressly delegated to the federal government. Our historical records reveal that the tenth amendment was intended by the ratifiers as both a substantive declaration as well as a provision of protection.

The insistence of the tenth amendment ensured that all would interpret Congress’ power to regulate the internal affairs of the States with strict scrutiny. James Madison recognized that where the judiciary specifically did not apply the correct mode of interpreting State sovereignty, it would lead to “an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact” (Federalist Paper 39).

The tenth amendment’s substantive and formal importance was advocated by both Anti-Federalists and Federalists. The overall understanding and exposition of Congress’ power under the United States Constitution was held in this light: “the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty…which were not…EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 32).

These parallel lines of sovereignty were deemed the essence of freedom’s protection. Admittedly, more emphasis was placed on this division of sovereignty than was placed on precisely defining the extent of Congress’ powers. Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist Paper 31, “all observations founded upon the danger of usurpation ought to be referred to the composition and structure of the government, NOT to the nature or extent of its powers” (emphasis added).

Given (a) the “infirmities and depravities of the human character” (James Madison, Federalist Paper 37), (b) popular elections are not sufficient to check ambitious government,[1] and (c) the problems with mutable policies;[2] the founders observed that “mere declarations in the written constitution are not sufficient to restrain the several departments [of the federal government” (James Madison, Federalist Paper 49).

Thus, the structure of the constitution provided political defense from both the State and the United States, and the people’s rights were more protected from usurpations. In juxtaposition, where the structure allowed for one side to dominate the other without defense, usurpations would become more frequent and dangerous. This consequence was to be avoided by all means.

Since the constitution’s ratification, both state and federal courts have recognized that the United States Constitution was based upon principles of federalism. “This constitutionally mandated division of authority ‘was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties.’” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991). The constitution is the supreme law of the land, not just what Congress says. All must obey and protect it.

Shockingly, there is an attorney running for Montana Attorney General in 2012 who does not subscribe to this form of government but instead, flips it on its head to create an entirely different form of government than what was ratified by the consent of the governed. This person is Jim Shockley. Shockley’s view of the constitution has been revealed by his statements while sitting as a Senator for Montana.

III. Shockley’s View of Constitution is Right-Wing Extremism: Governance Not Based On the Supreme Law of the Land, but on Military Force

Shockley believes that the United States Constitution changed in 1865 from its organic form. This change came not by the consent of the governed through constitutional process—the will of the people—but by military force. To Shockley, the Civil War “settled” all issues involving State Sovereignty. By “resolved,” Shockley really means, conquered.

In spite of (1) our forbearers’ sacrifices from 1776 to 1781 to win independence from Great Britain (see, Federalist Paper 45); (2) their tireless efforts and genius to create a federal republic composed of sovereign States as seen in every union formed in America from 1776 to 1787 (Id.); (3) the intent and genius of our forefathers from 1781 to 1791 to perpetuate a federal republic;[3] (4) the innumerable debates and cognitions made by America’s statesmen;[4] (5) and the United States Supreme Court decisions contradicting Shockley’s view of the constitution, Shockley believes that all federal laws are superior to the States’ and that all States must obey even where those federal laws or actions violate the essence of federalism and Congress’ limited powers.

It is no surprise then, that Shockley denies the power of the States to interpose against federal usurpations. It is doubtful if Shockley has a plan to substantively reduce federal intrusion and to respond to federal violations of the constitution. This is evident given his campaign website statement that he opposed Montana’s citizen initiative in 2004 for medical marijuana use because it “was illegal under the federal law.” Never mind that growing and using a natural plant was never a matter to be regulated by Congress. To Shockley, it is not the supreme law of the land that guides his position on the issue, but federal law. Shockley’s position is dangerous to Montana.

Read the rest of article picking up at “IV.”

Subscribe to Timothy Baldwin’s articles by going to Order Timothy and Chuck Baldwin’s recently released book, Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission by going to


1. “One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one…As little will it avail us, that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced…that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” James Madison, Federalist Paper 48.
2. “The internal effects of a mutable political are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood”. James Madison, Federalist Paper 62.
3. “[W]e must look for [the constitution’s meaning]…in the State Conventions, which accepted and ratified the Constitution”. Kurt Lash, Meaning of an Omission, citing, 5 ANNALS OF CONG. 776, James Madison (1796).
4. “They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society. They reared the fabrics of governments which have no model on the face of the globe. They formed the design of a great Confederacy, which it is incumbent on their successors to improve and perpetuate. If their works betray imperfections, we wonder at the fewness of them. If they erred most in the structure of the Union, this was the work most difficult to be executed; this is the work which has been new modelled by the act of your convention, and it is that act on which you are now to deliberate and to decide.” James Madison, Federalist Paper 14 (emphasis added).

Journalism Gone Bad: The Southern Poverty Law Center

If you do not know of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and their more than questionable tactics, allow me to give you a glimpse of their bias and hate agenda in light of its recent article against me and others.

SPLC Tactics

The SPLC has a mission to destroy any person who attempts to (re)implement the principles of the U.S. Constitution as portrayed by America’s founding generation. They attempt to accomplish this by using rhetoric of hysteria. They use guilt-by-association logic and attempt to paint with very broad and fuzzy brushes. agrees on this point.

SPLC never defines the terms it uses; it only uses them to ridicule, denigrate, and marginalize, hoping the public will discredit those people SPLC demeans before the public has a chance to listen to the substance of what SPLC’s targets are saying.

SPLC’s use of logical formula is as liberal and unbounded as their idea of the federal government’s power over the States and individuals. (How, then, does SPLC and the Department of Homeland Security get along so well?)

SPLC Unfounded Attack on Patriots

In its article, SPLC alleges Montana is a hotbed for antigovernment whack-jobs (despite the fact that their “hate-map” shows Montana scores relatively low even by their standards). SPLC names as “antigovernment extremists” my dad, Chuck Baldwin; fellow Flathead County resident and Oath Keepers founder, Stewart Rhodes; and Sheriff Richard Mack—and they associate me, Timothy Baldwin, as the same. Forget proven track records of scholarship, statesmanship, education, reputation, and credentials. Those are non-factors in their reporting.

SPLC attempts to convince the public by using comical cartoons they drew on cardboard instead of showing you the live show in real time on a big-screen TV. After all, with the use of strobe lights, even the most uncoordinated and untrained man dances well; and in the dark, even the ugliest person can say she is pretty.
Eliminate Their Threat

SPLC is threatened and therefore feels compelled to marginalize Chuck Baldwin given his recent announcement to run for Montana’s Lt. Governor. They would HATE to see Chuck Baldwin in this executive position, which is all the more reason for you to SUPPORT HIS CANDIDACY. Electing Chuck Baldwin would undermine SPLC’s life’s work. Chuck’s candidacy makes the SPLC mission precarious given that named Montana as the number 1 gubernatorial election in the nation.

Why doesn’t SPLC use any of Bob Fanning and Chuck Baldwin’s campaign platform in their articles? It is open for all to see: Perhaps because their platform would bring to public attention their effort of legitimately restoring constitutional government. SPLC does not want to argue points of history, philosophy, and law.

It is not so surprising that SPLC uses the same tactics against other individuals and groups that are protecting and pursuing the Supreme Law of the Land as bequeathed to us by our honored forefathers. Such groups include, for example, the Tenth Amendment Center and Rep. Matt Shea (R-WA), among many others.

SPLC Spreads Lies and Disinformation as Fact

SPLC has a serious problem with its references and use of those references. They have apparently confused the standards of journalism with a fictitious writer’s license of creativity. Unfortunately, some very foolish people actually believe what SPLC spews. Here are just a few fact distortion samples in its recent article.

Lie Sample #1: Tim Baldwin’s Campaign for FVCC Trustee

SPLC states that I ran for an elected position on the trustee board at Flathead Community College. In context of its article, SPLC would have the reader feel that my candidacy is something to be feared and shunned. That is to say, Timothy Baldwin is an extremist, antigovernment wacko, and he is running for a public position and getting sizeable portions of votes. Oh, no!

However, SPLC fails to mention that some of my opponents and opponents’ supporters told me I displayed honor and professionalism; focused on issue-based discussion; and was someone whom the current board of trustees could see themselves working with—this coming from both Republicans and Democrats.

To SPLC, that information was not newsworthy. Why?–because it would paint me (one of their targets) in a positive light and would undermine their fabrication.

Lie Sample # 2: Baldwin Institute of Education

SPLC asserted that Chuck Baldwin and I started Baldwin Institute of Education to teach children about American Revolutionary History. Given the context of their article about antigovernment and militia extremists, their spin on this is blatantly apparent: they want people to think Tim and Chuck Baldwin are trying to brain wash children to get ready for a war against the Feds!

Their description of the Baldwin Institute of Education demonstrates poor journalism to say the least; first, because only I started the institute—not Chuck Baldwin; second, because I started it primarily for homeschoolers to give them classical education; third, the institution offered many courses (see below for list); and fourth, because they never asked me—the first-hand source—about the educational program.

Where did SPLC get the “fact” that the institution was to teach children about American Revolutionary history?—from a reliable source? It is not too difficult to see where SPLC likely derived its distorted and incomplete information. Look here where this SPLC-like group in Montana describes my formation of the institution as, “Right Wing Re-education Camp Opening in the Flathead.” Like SPLC, that “Montana group” did not attempt to contact me about my education program. Their journalism appears as un-credible as SPLC’s, if that’s possible.

SPLC ignored a much more reliable source (a site hosted by a highly educated doctor in climate physics called, that shows the institution as follows: “Courses will include Philosophy of Human Nature, Society and the State; Logic of Deductive and Inductive Reasoning; History of Colonial America and the United States of America; and Law of Jurisprudence and the Constitution.”

Conveniently for SPLC, they took what they wanted from the facts to distort the thinking of the readers to fit their agenda.

Lie Sample #3: Montana ‘Militia’ Advocates Are Antigovernment

SPLC loves to throw around the word “militia” as a bad word. They attempt to characterize any person who holds a militia to be necessary to a free State to be an antigovernment, violent, federal-government-hating extremist. SPLC’s common target in this regard is the founder of Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes—an attorney and graduate from Yale law school and veteran Army paratrooper, who also lives in Montana.

SPCL says about him, “Rhodes is laying the groundwork for a new militia and is calling for citizens to adopt a barter economy to escape the bondage of U.S. currency.” Consequently, they tag Rhodes, in undefined form, as “conspiracy-minded.”

First, SPLC ignores that (a) the United States Constitution, Second Amendment, expressly states that each and every State must be well-armed and well-regulated to maintain its freedom; and (b) this militia force was not as against foreign intrusion, but primarily against federal government intrusion; (c) the Federalist Paper writers confirmed this constitutional reality repeatedly and used it as a basis to convince the States to ratify the constitution of the United States of America.

Second, SPLC ignores the fact that Montana’s constitution and code provide for and require a militia made up of both an organized and unorganized militia (See, 10-1-103, MCA)—the unorganized militia being exactly what Rhodes discusses in his Oath Keepers platform.

Third, SPLC would have Rhodes appear to be a wacko because he educates people on the subject of bartering for the purpose of offsetting the risks and dangers of a declining dollar. SPLC proves its utterly depraved sense of reality in this regard as bartering is a method of trade that has existed since humans existed and has proven to be successful during times of economic depression—not to mention, bartering is simply a display of the natural laws of self-preservation and self-improvement.

Fourth, SPLC ignores that the United States Constitution mandates that no State “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” and that the Federal Reserve System created by the federal government undermines the Supreme Law of the Land in this regard. Yet SPLC would have the public believe that those trying to prepare for alternatives to an unconstitutional economic system are the ones who are crazy.

Lie Sample #4: Chuck Baldwin and Other Montanan Patriots Are White Supremacists

SPLC tries hard to make people like Chuck Baldwin, Stewart Rhodes, and others appear racist to discredit their reputation instantaneously.

Let us be clear: I am not racist; Chuck Baldwin is not racist; Stewart Rhodes is not racist; Matt Shea is not racist; Richard Mack is not racist. And there is not one piece of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Some of my closest friends are of African descent. The same can be said of Chuck Baldwin. Stewart Rhodes openly reveals that his ancestry comprises a mix of minority races, and he has openly denounced racism in his platform, as does Chuck and as do I.

SPLC shatters its own credibility by trying to link credible people with others who are openly white supremacists or the like.

Lie Sample #5: Liberty Fellowship Membership Comprises Antigovernment Racists

SLPC again uses guilt-by-association logic and tries to portray Chuck Baldwin’s Liberty Fellowship church in Kalispell, MT as a gathering of antigovernment, white supremacists.

First, SPLC ignores that there is no membership requirement at Liberty Fellowship. The doors are open for anyone to attend. Chuck Baldwin will minister to and speak to anyone who will listen. This is what Jesus said: “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink” (John 7:37 kjv).

I presume then SPLC would have pastors turn people away at the door or kick them out of the congregation where they do not believe in SPLC’s version of “truth”—which is what? I wonder how many people who have attended President Obama’s events are felons or otherwise despicable people. I presume SPLC would not hold Obama or other big-government advocates to the same standard they obviously require of Christian pastors.

Second, SPLC ignores that Chuck Baldwin’s sermons are live-streamed on the internet every Sunday for the entire world to see and listen. The message is not being hidden; there is no secret agenda. Like every church in America should be, the message of truth and reason is available for all to hear.

Third, SPLC ignores the quality of people who regularly attend and contribute to Liberty Fellowship’s services. It also ignores that there are people who attend that are Chinese, African, Spanish, Canadian, Native Indian, among other ethnicities.

Lie Sample #6: Description of Chuck Baldwin as Having Abandoned His Former Church

SPLC throws out this word when describing Chuck Baldwin’s retirement from Crossroad Baptist Church, a church in Pensacola, FL he founded and pastored for 35 years!—“ Last fall, he arrived in Kalispell after abandoning a church he led for 35 years in Pensacola, Fla.”

This description clearly demonstrates bias and distortion of fact—not to mention, SPLC never defines “abandoning” but only uses the word in attempts to make Chuck Baldwin appear in the worst light.

The truth is, when Chuck Baldwin retired from his former church, he made sure the church was not without a senior, experienced pastor one Sunday. And to this day, that same senior pastor that the church accepted upon Chuck Baldwin’s retirement still leads Crossroad Baptist Church. Apparently, the church more than accepted this new pastor; they love him.

Be Aware of the Wolves

The essence of SPLC and their articles are despicable and demonstrate how journalism can go bad.

People like the SPLC will always exist. They always have. We just have to be aware of who they are and lend them no credibility. As Scriptures says, “Give honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:7). We do not give honor to whom honor is not due. Instead, we “resist the devil and his ministers, so they will flee from us.”

The protection of our counties, states, and union rests in our ability to govern ourselves and guard liberty. Outing the SPLC for who they are would be a great stride to that end. Meanwhile, as long as people like the SPLC consider me a threat to their agenda, I will wear that as a badge of honor.

Subscribe to Timothy Baldwin’s articles by going to Order Timothy and Chuck Baldwin’s recently released book, Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission by going to

© 2011 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD – All Rights Reserved

Stop State and Federal Charades: Elect True Leaders for Montana

I have lived in Montana for over a year and have practiced law here for about the same time. I have handled various medical marijuana cases and have become familiar with the legal and political scenario regarding state and federal laws on medical marijuana.

During this time I have seen a most disturbing sign of our political condition, and it confirms what I have expressed for the past several years concerning state sovereignty verses federal usurpation.

Montana Medical Marijuana Laws

In 2004 the citizens of Montana overwhelmingly passed an initiative to legalize the medical use of marijuana. (Please, if you oppose legalizing marijuana, do not let the subject fog a clear understanding of the point of this article–personal views on morality is not the issue.)

Since then, the State legislature has essentially repealed that law and replaced it with another medical marijuana plan. Regardless of which marijuana law, the lawful use of marijuana for medical use remains.

Conflict with Federal Drug Laws

This state law is, of course, in violation of federal laws that outlaw all possession, manufacturing, growing, and use of marijuana. So, how does this conflict play out in the federal union of the United States? And what do the state and federal governments’ actions regarding the same reveal about this union’s condition?

Federal Prosecutions in Montana

Since early 2011, the federal government has initiated raids and prosecutions against Montana citizens for alleged violation of federal drug laws—in spite of Montana’s laws.

Federal agents focused their attacks on those who were doing business openly—using store front, public advertisement, incorporated registration, etc. This is significant given that the Feds claim they investigated these matters for “years”—it is comparable to investigating Wal-Mart for selling products made in China. Makes you wonder how proficient they are in tax-dollar use.

Federal “Conspiracy” Charges Against Citizens

Word has spread in Montana that the federal government considers certain people as conspiring to violate federal law where those people have only relationships with marijuana users and providers.
For example, a general contractor who builds a greenhouse for a provider; a landlord who rents a grow building to a grower; a person who supplies manufacturing materials; a doctor who prescribes marijuana to a patient; an attorney who drafts legal documents for a marijuana incorporation—all are subject to federal prosecution as “conspirators.”

In fact, one such contractor has been federally charged, and I know of an attorney who has been made a “generous” plea offer of over 100 years in federal prison. What an outrage!

If you study and understand the fundamental concepts regarding state sovereignty and federalism, this situation should burn coals in your gut. But it is worse than the obvious issues of inviolable separation of state from federal usurpation.

Who Are the “Conspirators” to the Feds?

Get a good grasp of this picture: the legislators of Montana pass a law permitting the medical use of marijuana, and similarly, for 7 years, never repeal the marijuana law the people directly passed; the executive branch of Montana signs the same into law; the executive’s administrations regulate and provide for the legal methods of using and distributing marijuana in the State; the Montana Supreme Court has recognized marijuana as a prescription drug; the Secretary of State certifies corporations who openly operate medical marijuana business.

In short, those in the marijuana business are working as legitimately under State law as a local barber shop—not to mention, the State is receiving taxes from this industry and has supplied payroll, covered overhead, and built infrastructure with these taxes. During these economic times, this is not a small matter.

Yet, the Federal government prosecutes Montana’s citizens who comply with a law the state government passed, permitted, executed, and administered on their behalf. The Feds do not attack the power of the State directly by prosecuting State officials. Rather the Feds attack Montana’s citizens, thereby ruining the lives of those without sufficient power, money, and force of government to protect the State’s sovereignty recognized in the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

How convenient for shaping the issue of federal authority. Were the Feds to focus their criminal prosecutions on State officials, the issues would look quite difficult. The Feds avoid this scene. I guess the public mind has not been completely indoctrinated to that level—yet.

Apply Federal Authority Equally—What Would Result?

Here is the question:

if it is lawful for the federal government to arrest Montana citizens who are complying with State law for violating federal law (including those who “conspire” to help users or providers with this unlawful use of marijuana), then would it not also be for them to prosecute state officials who instigated the conspiracy to begin with by putting into place the law so people could benefit from it?

If the answer is, yes; then we do not live in a federal union composed of sovereign states—we live in a national system with the States being nothing but counties to the one-nation, AMERICAN STATE.

If the answer is, no; then what power does the federal government have to arrest a state citizen in complying with a state law?

And what is to be said about the sovereignty of the States and the federal union it created where state government does nothing to protect its own sovereignty?

“State” Officials Are Really Federal (Sub)Agents

It is contemptible that the government of the State of Montana would pretend to care about the sovereignty of the people of Montana by passing a law on their behalf only to hide behind their official status while the federal government bulldozes its way into this state to arrest any Montanan it says is breaking federal law.

Given the way the federal government treats the citizens of the States and the State’s land, the question must be asked: what good are States anyway? Why do we even have States where this kind of action takes place supposedly pursuant to the U.S. Constitution? It would seemingly be much better were we to get rid of the pretense and the litigation arguing the point.

However, seeing that this exact type of constitution was proposed at the 1787 constitutional convention but rejected indicates that the system being implemented today is not constitutional after all.

All the while, State officials sit in their fancy government chairs in a beautiful, big State house, pass state laws, pull the rug over their eyes to the federal government’s intrusion of the State’s sovereignty, and somehow think they are representing the State of Montana.

Sovereignty un-asserted and unprotected is no sovereignty at all. Even the Federalist authors—the “liberals” of their day—admitted this about our federal system.

Will Montana (and Other States) Elect a Real State Leader in 2012?

The States are reaching a tipping point. Either the States are going to be crushed under the weight of the federal government, or (some) will successfully reclaim sovereignty that has been lost for over 150 years. The real question is: what will be the catalyst to cause the tip?

There is hardly any room, if any, left for (federal) courts to determine issues of political power and the sovereignty of the people. This can only be decided by the people—the source of political power.

Montana needs a governor to stand up for the sovereignty of the people of Montana—a governor who will not hide behind his executive position but will assert his position to protect our sovereignty and independence—who will uphold the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I hope the people of Montana will recognize the vital importance of this issue. It is not about Republican or Democrat; conservative or liberal; red, blue, or green. It is about liberty and a republican and federal form of government.

Those who snuff at this fundamental concept only reveal their priorities and misunderstanding of American constitutional law and political philosophy; their credibility to influence these kinds of decisions should be seen as meritless and elementary.

For you Montanans who see this importance, I hope you will cut through politicians’ rhetoric as they campaign for office in 2012 (for indeed, most, if not all, of the republicans are going to say something about State rights but will do nothing in practice to assert it). Find the candidate who will be a true leader and stand for the rights of the State of Montana. It is their duty.

The only way you can preserve your freedom in the State of Montana is to elect a governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general who will support and defend our constitutions in reality, not in charade only.

© 2011 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD – All Rights Reserved