Month: July 2026

URGENT: Congress May Soon Vote on NDAA Section 219
NATIONAL CONSTITUTION PARTY CHAIRMAN
Justin Magill

The Window for Action is NOW!

Congress may soon vote on H.R. 8800, the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. Buried within the bill is Section 219, creating a permanent United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative within the Department of Defense. Once the House adopts a new rule, the NDAA could return to the floor with little notice. The time for citizen engagement is now.

Why This Matters

Section 219 establishes a permanent framework for defense-technology cooperation in artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, quantum technologies, missile defense, cyber and electronic warfare, directed energy, biotechnology, and defense-industrial cooperation. The concern is not that it transfers command authority or formally merges the armed forces. Rather, it creates deep statutory integration without the treaty process, dedicated hearings, or a recorded vote. Whatever one’s position on Israel, these constitutional questions deserve open debate.

Take Action Today
- Contact your U.S. Representative and urge opposition to Section 219. (Capitol switchboard 202-224-3121)
- Ask your Representative to support a recorded vote on removing Section 219.
- Contact both U.S. Senators and urge opposition to the Senate companion provision, Section 1217. (Capitol switchboard 202-224-3121)
- Ask each Member of Congress to publicly state his or her position.
Tell your Congressmen to:
```
"Oppose Section 219 and 1217 of the National Defense Authorization Act. It violates the Constitution's treaty requirements and has no dedicated hearings or recorded votes. America's defense technology should be America first, not integrated with any other country."
```
Read the Legislation for Yourself

The Constitution Party encourages every citizen to examine the actual legislative language before forming an opinion. Official bill text: H.R. 8800 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027

Search within the document for:

SEC. 219. UNITED STATES-ISRAEL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION INITIATIVE

(Use Ctrl+F (Windows/Linux) or Command+F (Mac) to jump directly to the provision.)

An example letter below is provided by one of our leadership members:

The Honorable Josh Hawley
United States Senate
381 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

RE: Oppose Section 1217 of the FY2027 NDAA and House Section 219

Dear Senator Hawley,

I am writing as a Missouri constituent to ask you to oppose Section 1217 of the Senate committee-reported Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act and Section 219 of H.R. 8800. These provisions would establish a permanent United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, creating standing machinery for bilateral research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, industrial cooperation, acquisition, joint training, and information-sharing across artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, quantum technologies, missile defense, directed energy, cyber and electronic warfare, biotechnology, data fusion, and other emerging technologies.

The legislation does not formally place American forces under foreign command. The constitutional concern is nevertheless substantial: it would institutionalize deep defense-technological and industrial integration with a foreign sovereign through ordinary legislation embedded in a must-pass bill, rather than through a transparent process proportionate to the commitment. In the House version, reporting requirements end after 2030 while the initiative itself has no sunset.

I respectfully ask you to:

1. Publicly state your opposition to Senate Section 1217 and House Section 219.

2. Support an amendment striking Section 1217 from the Senate bill and insist upon a recorded vote.

3. Urge Senate leadership not to include this permanent initiative in any managers’ package or final conference agreement.

4. Vote against final passage of an NDAA that retains either provision without separate debate and a recorded vote.

Whatever one’s view of Israel, the national defense of the United States must remain solely under American constitutional authority, with Congress answerable to the People for every enduring foreign commitment. This issue deserves far more scrutiny than it has received.
Please provide a written response stating your position and the action you intend to take.

Respectfully, [sign your name]
July 17, 2026
What is the Purpose of Government?

NATIONAL CONSTITUTION PARTY CHAIRMAN
Justin Magill

The way we answer this question determines what we allow government, and our public functionaries, to do. The answer to this question is what we hold up against campaign rhetoric and legislative bills. It is what we should be basing our calls for government action on.

So, what is the purpose of government?

Webster’s 1828 – American Dictionary of the English Language states:

“GOV’ERNMENT 4. The system of polity in a state; that form of fundamental rules and principles by which a nation or state is governed, or by which individual members of a body politic are to regulate their social actions; a constitution, either written or unwritten, by which the rights and duties of citizens and public officers are prescribed and defined; as a monarchial government or a republican government.

Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without the pretence of miracle or mystery, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

Our founding Declaration of Independence states what the purpose of government is in America: “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.”

The purpose of government is to secure our Individual Rights!

Do we live our lives in agreement with this Declaration? Do we demand that government secure Individual Rights, or do we demand that government violate Individual Rights to give us “safety and security?”

When politicians promise to give us things, or deliver the pork, are we upset and calling them on the carpet to correct them, or do we grab all the entitlements we can and demand more?

When public functionaries, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, are encouraged by ‘We the People’ to “legally” plunder us, very few will resist the temptation.

Americans must ask themselves whether they support defending Individual Rights; and they must be honest with themselves about their answer to that question and whether their words and actions line up with that answer.

What do you truly believe is the purpose of government? Beliefs lead to actions, and actions (and inactions) have natural consequences. Good intentions never negate the consequences of bad or poorly thought-out actions.

July 17, 2026
The Uniparty is Out; America is Back In
NATIONAL CONSTITUTION PARTY CHAIRMAN
Justin Magill

America 250 Fund Drive

When in the course of human events we find ourselves once again being told by a tyrannical government that we must do whatever the government tells us, it is once again time to defend our God-given rights and limit our government. The uniparty has indoctrinated many with the belief that there is no choice but to vote for them and that a vote for anyone else is a “wasted vote” or a vote for the “other team.” Their bipartisan efforts to keep voter options limited is only surpassed by their bipartisan efforts to suppress our individual rights and take our money.

^{“But, pardon me, my fellow citizens, I know you want not zeal or fortitude. You will maintain your rights or perish in the generous struggle. However, difficult the combat, you never will decline it when freedom is the prize.”}

^{Dr. Joseph Warren ~ Delivered at Boston, 6 March 1775}

Fight The Lies

The Democratic and Republican parties are happy to use voters to maintain power, but they have grown completely tone deaf to the needs of their supporters. And they are losing major supporters as they push out those who object to the waste and abuse.
- Tucker Carlson recently announced his leaving the Republican party.
- Marjorie Taylor Greene has also announced that she is done with Republican party.
- Thomas Massie was primaried when he stood for principles over party.
Support the Uniparty Exit

Everyday Americans have had enough. The youth are avoiding the uniparty and registering independent in record numbers. We have a growing opportunity…and the Constitution Party is capitalizing on it!

As a national political party, we can scale up quickly with new volunteers and new donors to take on the uniparty across the nation. As our current ballot qualified States are adding more and more candidates, and more and more local organizations, we are looking to add more ballot qualified States.

In New Hampshire, the Constitution Party has an opportunity gain ballot access, and gain recognized party status, through the efforts of the CP of NH and their 2026 U.S. Senate candidate, Edmond Laplante. We are currently raising funds and volunteers to assist in his signature gathering of 3,000 signatures to be placed on the general ballot this fall. With only 4% of the vote, the CP of NH will give New Hampshire a third political party to combat the uniparty.

The Constitution Party of North Carolina is also gathering signatures to regain the right for North Carolinians to register with the CP of NC and to be able to place their candidates on the ballot without having to endure the odious and enormous challenge of signature gathering for ballot recognition.

West Virginia recently gained their ballot access and has joined the ranks of other CP States that are able to offer candidates.

We would like to be able to offer these candidates financial support for their campaigns and assist them with advertising since they will be facing media blackouts thanks to the uniparty. We are therefore running a major fundraising campaign through the end of 2026 to expand Americans’ political options, expand the CP’s ballot access, build State Affiliates, and support our growing number of candidates.

In honor of America’s 250th birthday, we have a goal to raise $250,000 by the end of 2026. We have an opportunity to launch a major 2028 political revolution out of the collapse of the two old dying parties by taking advantage of the immediate situation. Your support right now will have an exponential impact down the road. Will you make a commitment to freedom now?

Add Your Funds

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Patrick Henry

“It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.

Samuel Adams

Join in the Restoration of Liberty
July 2, 2026
The claims of “birthright citizenship” exposed.

NATIONAL CONSTITUTION PARTY CHAIRMAN
Justin Magill

BIRTH’RIGHT, noun [birth and right.] Any right or privilege, to which a person is entitled by birth, such as an estate descendible by law to an heir, or civil liberty under a free constitution.

CITIZENSHIP, noun The state of being vested with the rights and privileges of a citizen.

The term “birthright citizenship” is intentionally used to try to convince you of the legitimacy of the narrative they are pushing. The problem with their phrase is that their contrived definition denies natural law. Since citizenship is inherited from the parent, an accurate definition of birthright citizenship is “a right of citizenship descendible to the child from that child’s parent.”

This natural law is clearly spelled by Vattel in his Law of Nations:

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

Emmerich de Vattel

BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19: Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It

212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; (emphasis added) and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (emphasis added)

215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; (emphasis added)

I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

Thus by natural law, their definition of birthright citizenship is nonsensical and in direct contradiction to natural law.

We see this understanding of natural law citizenship inheritance reaffirmed by our Founders right after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. David Ramsay, often called the historian of the American Revolution, reiterated this in his 1789 dissertation:

A DISSERTATION ON THE MANNER OF ACQUIRING THE CHARACTER AND PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.

PRINTED IN THE YEAR MDCCLXXXIX. David Ramsay

4th. None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason: no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution: but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not of American citizens.

Citizenship bestowed at birth is confined to the children of those who were themselves citizens. The place of birth does not change this inheritance, and if the child is born to a non-citizen, it is only the child’s place of birth and not their country.

This understanding was reaffirmed again by the 14^th Amendment: “All persons born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The requirement here, for a child to be born a citizen, is the place of birth plus the citizenship of the parents. A person who is not an American citizen can be deported because they are subject to a foreign jurisdiction. Conversely, and American citizen cannot be deported because they subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Countries that chose not to follow the natural law did so for obvious reasons. The British laws at the time of the American Revolution declared every child born to a British subject, and every child born in any place under British rule, to be British subjects. The most obvious point to be made here is that these people were considered to be owned by the British king. This contradictory policy claimed the maximum number of humans that could be claimed for Britain. This was not an attempt to give a gift, but to capture a resource. The British government tried to maximize their human resources and then tried to maximize what they could extract from them.

The decades leading up the American Revolutionary War were filled with British attempts to tax and control their subject here in America and the colonists defending their natural rights. The continued abuses on the colonists by a government that view them as property drove the colonists to rebel and declare their independence from Britain.

Our current uniparty government in America has taken on the same mindset. They continue to look for ways to pile on more national debt, steal through inflation, and assert their right to tax us as they see fit. They have declared us to be a mere resource of theirs to use and abuse.

On this 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence let us throw off the chains of the two-party system mindset and declare ourselves to be Citizens and not merely subjects to the uniparty.

The Uniparty is Out, America is Back.

July 1, 2026