Tenth Amendment Center: Constitutional Conversation

A call to action with a special emphasis for libertarians Want to stop the sociopaths in Washington DC? Ron Paul told you how. Judge Napolitano is on board. Tom Woods provides intellectual firepower to back it up. And today, I’ll share six steps to get you started. Obviously, it will take some work. But what should a liberty lover actually do? March on DC? Lobby Congress? Support a campaign in the 2016 presidential election? Answer: No. No. And, no. RON PAUL’S ADVICE Ron Paul said nullification would “reverse the trend and stop the usurpation of all the powers and privileges from the states to the federal government.” The game-plan is right in front of you. It’s nullification. That bears repeating: if you want to stop federal thugs, Ron Paul advises you to nullify. I can’t think of a stronger endorsement for libertarians than this powerful statement from the man who brought the principles of liberty to the mainstream. Think about it. Nullification isn’t just an interesting theory or some historical oddity for study. It’s a method Ron Paul himself endorsed as a path to “stop the usurpation of power.” That’s serious business, and a call for you to take action. DEFINITIONS What IS nullification? In order to share a plan of action, you must first understand what nullification is. When Thomas Jefferson called it the “rightful remedy,” he didn’t specifically define it. Dictionaries from that time offer a pretty broad definition. Nullify: To annul; to make void. Dictionary.com is far more specific. Nullification: “the failure or refusal of a U.S. state to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, especially on Constitutional grounds.” Personally, I find that definition far too narrow. Tom Woods’ indispensable LibertyClassroom.com says nullification happens when states “refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.” Woods also points out that outright resistance can be part of the process too. The Tenth Amendment Center takes a “big tent” view when defining nullification: “Any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null and void, or unenforceable within a particular area.” NULLIFICATION: IN PRACTICE Nullification is more about the end result than the method. There are five main paths. 1. “Legalized” public defiance. State laws allowing what the feds have banned can accomplish nullification. Such laws encourage people on the margins to join in with others already defying the federal act. State marijuana laws fit into this category. In a conversation with Judge Napolitano, Ron Paul confirmed state marijuana laws are an act of nullification. In his recent Mises Institute article, Mark Thornton agreed. While such laws don’t create physical barriers blocking DC from enforcing their criminal acts, time and increasing numbers create a situation the feds can no longer stop or control. 2. State, local and individual noncompliance. By 1928,28 states stopped funding alcohol prohibition enforcement and local police only sporadically enforced the law. In a 1925 address to Congress, Maryland’s Senator Brucestated, “national prohibition went into legal effect upward of six years ago, but it can be truly said that, except to a highly qualified extent, it has never gone into practical effect at all.” There are similar actions happening today. Washington State and Colorado will stop enforcing marijuana prohibition. Andstates and local communities are considering bills refusing cooperation with NDAA “indefinite detention” provisions or gun control measures. Judge Napolitano recently observed how powerful noncompliance like this can be. He noted that the federal government simply doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all its laws. Therefore, noncompliance can make federal laws “nearly impossible to enforce.” Ron Paul strongly supports individual noncompliance: “Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero — because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience, nonviolence.” 3. State and local interposition. State agents “stand between” you and the federal government to protect your rights. In general, this includes criminal charges for federal agents attempting to enforce a nullified “law.” Inresponse to the fugitive slave act of 1850, a number of states did just that and were quite effective. Two bonus categories: Jury nullification. A jury votes to acquit, even if a “law” was broken. Individual nullification. Every time you break a so-called “law” and get away with it, you nullify. TAKE ACTION NOW Here are some steps that you can start taking now. Not after the next election, and not next year. Not next month or next week. Today, not tomorrow. Right now. 1. Forget that the 202 area code exists. If you’ve spent days calling DC to support or oppose this or that, you’ve wasted your time. To advance liberty, forget DC – that pit of criminals. You will never, ever accomplish your goals there. Don’t call anyone there. Don’t send lette

I get it. I really do. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to ignore it. It seems obvious to me that in order to hold a place of prominence at MSNBC you either need to be a partisan hack, or totally clueless of history. Probably both. So when MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show producer Steve Benen shares his opinion, it’s usually just best to turn a blind eye to his idiocy. But, sometimes it’s important to pay attention to what they say because it can actually give us insight on just what we should do for liberty. In fact, if you believe in the right to keep and bear arms and wonder what to do to support that right, you’ll get all the advice you need in Steve’s recent Maddow Blog article, “Pointless Nullification in Kansas.” Surprised? Read on. It’s true. BACKSTORY This month, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed into law the “Second Amendment Protection Act,” a bill that reasserts the state’s role in protecting the right to keep and bear arms of those living there. The bill reads, in part: “Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.” In conjunction with the above clause, the bill defines what is meant by “the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” and that it isn’t based off a decision by the Supreme Court. The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861. By definition, state and local agents cannot enforce any acts or actions that are “null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.” Based off this text, the state of Kansas now cannot participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood when Kansas became a state in 1861. I happen to think such a state law is a big deal. In Steve’s blog “report” on the issue, he quoted me as saying that this bill is “potentially the most important state level bill passed in modern American history.” He didn’t take too kindly to that opinion, though, and spent some time talking about my “hyperbole” and the “cause for alarm” over the fact that Brownback signed this bill into law. In fact, Steve spent quite a bit of time explaining how such an act is a waste of time. He even said the law doesn’t make “any sense at all.” SENSE So here’s some sense for our propagandist. According to Steve, the courts, and the court only, determine what the constitution actually means. But that flies in the face of what James Madison had to say. You know Madison, the guy referred to as the “Father of the Constitution.” In his own words: “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” No tribunal above the authority of the states? Hmmmm. That doesn’t jive with Steve’s version. In Federalist #46, Madison also told us how to deal with things that the States determined were unconstitutional. He wrote: “Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” Steve Benen’s Constitution: The states have no role in determining Constitution. If they don’t like a federal law, they can “challenge the law in the courts.” In other words, they should ask a branch of the federal government to limit the power of the federal government. Yeah, OK. Right. We’ll get right on that, Steve. James Madison’s Constitution: The states have “no tribunal above their authority” to determine when the Constitution has been violated. That includes the “supreme court” tribunal. And, when states determine

Me. With pie. I like pie. Strike that. I absolutely love pie. I consider “bad pie” to be an oxymoron. But, anytime I’ve ever tried to eat an entire pie in one sitting (yes, this has happened more than once), I’ve had some negative results. Because of this, I’ll generally just eat a single slice. Ok, two. Maybe three. But that’s pushing it. Sometimes, if I’m at my favorite pie shop, I’ll get an extra one. For later. When working for liberty, I find myself taking the same approach. I love the whole pie of liberty. If I could have it all at once, I’d definitely go for it. Generally, though, I’ve found that taking it once piece at a time tends to be a far more successful approach, one that’s likely to be more long-lasting. REVERSING THE TREND When I founded the Tenth Amendment Center back in 2006, I never even conceived of much more than a little bite. What originally started out as a single-person blog with the goals of reaching just one person with each post has grown into a national movement. Lately, many liberty-oriented political activists and organizations have started getting more and more involved in the nullification movement. Certainly, Ron Paul has had some influence on this, as many people involved in his grassroots political effort watched him on the campaign trail speak favorably of nullification. And even quite strongly in favor during a debate. When Ron Paul says that nullification would “reverse the trend and stop the usurpation of all the powers and privileges from the states to the federal government,” I would suspect that a libertarian, political activist or not, would likely take notice. I can’t think of a stronger plea for libertarians to put their energy into nullification than that statement from the man who brought the principles of liberty to the mainstream. Think about that. Nullification isn’t just an interesting idea, it’s a method that Ron Paul has endorsed as a method to “stop the usurpation of power.” That’s serious business. DEFINITIONS But that leaves a question. What IS nullification? When Thomas Jefferson called it the rightful remedy, he didn’t define it. And if you were to look at a dictionary from that time, you’d get a pretty broad definition for nullify: To annul; to make void. On the word nullification, Dictionary.com is far more specific. The word is defined as “the failure or refusal of a U.S. state to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, especially on Constitutional grounds.” Personally, I think that definition is far too narrow. Tom Woods’ indispensable LibertyClassroom.com informs us that nullification is when states refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law, but he also points out that outright resistance can be a part of the process too. At the Tenth Amendment Center, we’re very “big tent” in our thinking about what nullification is. We’ve defined it like this: “Any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null and void, or unenforceable within a particular area.” NULLIFICATION: IN PRACTICE In essence, the goal of nullification is to stop a particular act from taking effect. That means nullification can take many forms. These are what I see as the main categories: 1. Authorized public defiance. State medical marijuana laws fit in this category. The laws authorize people to use a plant that’s illegal to the feds. Licenses are generally issued by the state to operate those businesses. On their own, state and local police don’t harass people following those laws, but do assist the feds when called upon for enforcement. Over time, even with that “cooperation” happening, the effects become greater. In Los Angeles alone, for example, there are currently over 1000 marijuana stores in operation today. A few get busted every month, most open back up within 24 hours, but 98% or greater are never even bothered. 2. State and local noncompliance. By 1928, 28 states had stopped funding for alcohol prohibition enforcement and local police were sporadic in their enforcement efforts. In a 1925 address to Congress, Maryland’s Senator Bruce stated, “national prohibition went into legal effect upward of six years ago, but it can be truly said that, except to a highly qualified extent, it has never gone into practical effect at all.” Similar actions are being taken today. Washington State and Colorado will be stopping enforcement on marijuana prohibition. And states and local communities are considering bills to refuse cooperation with the “indefinite detention” provisions of the NDAA, or federal gun control measures. 3. State and local interposition. Agents of the state would “stand between” you and the federal government to protect you from violations of your rights. In general, this would include criminal charges for federal agents attempting to enforce a law being nullified. In response to the fugitive slave act of 1850, a number of states passed laws to do just that. They were quite effective too. And two bonus c

Rosa Parks demonstrated the power of, “No.” Most Americans know her story. Parks was riding the Cleveland Avenue bus home from work in Montgomery, Alabama on Dec. 1, 1955, when the white only seats in the front filled with passengers. Bus driver James Blake moved the “colored” section sign behind the row Parks was sitting in and demanded that she and the three other black passengers move to seats in the rear of the bus to accommodate the white riders. Parks later said, “When that white driver stepped back toward us, when he waved his hand and ordered us up and out of our seats, I felt a determination cover my body like a quilt on a winter night.” The three other people in the row complied. Rosa Parks did not. “When he saw me still sitting, he asked if I was going to stand up, and I said, ‘No, I’m not.’ And he said, ‘Well, if you don’t stand up, I’m going to have to call the police and have you arrested.’ I said, ‘You may do that,’” Parks recalled in a 1987 PBS documentary on the Civil Rights movement. Notice what Parks did not do. She did not punch the bus driver in the face. She did not pull a gun and start firing away at the police officers when they showed up to arrest her. Her actions had no “teeth.” She just said, “No.” In fact, she was the one bitten. Police arrested Parks and she spent a day in jail. She was tried four days later and convicted of disorderly conduct. The judge fined her $10 and $4 in court costs. She also lost her job as a seamstress at a local department store. But Parks’ actions that day sparked the Montgomery bus boycott and ignited the civil rights movement. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. rose to prominence during the boycott, and when it was all said and done, America was a different place. As the King Institute at Stanford University points out, “The bus boycott demonstrated the potential for nonviolent mass protest to successfully challenge racial segregation and served as an example for other southern campaigns that followed.” Jim Crow died because one woman had the guts to say, “No.” Would anybody argue that Parks’ actions lacked courage or effect simply because they didn’t have “teeth?” Certainly not! Yet we get this argument all the time at the Tenth Amendment Center when we support noncompliance bills lacking criminal penalties for federal agents. As anybody who has stood in an arctic wind knows, things without teeth can still bite. A simple, “No” carries great power. As Parks demonstrated, we don’t have to swing our fists, or lock up federal agents, to bring about sweeping changes. Simply refusing to comply can be a complete game-changer. We need only look at the growing movement to nullify federal marijuana prohibition at the state level to see the truth. According to the feds, it was illegal when California voters approved its medical marijuana program in 1996. They did it anyway. Californians looked the feds in the eyes and said, “No. We will not follow your law.” The Supreme Court unsurprisingly affirmed federal power to regulate a plant grown in somebody’s back yard for pain relief in the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich decision. Did the people of California shut down their medical marijuana programs because the Supreme Court upheld the unconstitutional federal act? Nope. They looked the black-robed federal employees in the eye and said, “No, we don’t really care about your opinion.” Get the new book today! A funny thing happened over the years. Other states jumped on board, said, “No,” to federal marijuana laws, and started their own medical marijuana programs. Eighteen states to be exact, with more expected to join the ranks this year. The people of Washington and Colorado took things to the next level last November. Voters approved legalization of weed across the board. The people said, “No, federal overlords. We will not comply with your so-called law.” The feds continue to bluster and push back. They come in and raid dispensaries and threaten large-scale marijuana growers. But the issue continues to slip away from the federal government. It simply can’t force a large number of states to comply when the people don’t want to. For all practical purposes, we are witnessing the nullification of federal marijuana ‘laws.’ These state level marijuana acts don’t carry penalties at all. Not for the feds. Not for state agents. They feature no enforcement measures. They bare no teeth. State marijuana bills simply set up a mechanism of noncompliance. And they work. Rosa Parks proved it. “No” can change the world. The post The Power of No appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Last week, a Maryland House committee voted to support federal kidnapping within the borders of the Old Line State. OK – Maryland lawmakers didn’t exactly grant direct support for indefinite detention without due process, but they did refuse to pass a bill that would have blocked the state of Maryland from assisting or providing material support to federal attempts to throw a black bag over somebody’s head and drag them off into the night. In essence, those voting down the Maryland Liberty Preservation Act of 2013 tacitly agreed that the federal government has such power, and furthermore, they have no problem with agents of the Maryland government helping the feds out. So yes, when you boil it all down, they voted to support federal kidnapping. Not surprisingly, the vote went along party lines. Democrats in the Maryland Health and Government Operations Committee marched in lockstep to block Republicans’ attempt to nullify federal indefinite detention provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Act. You read that right. Democrats – the party of the “Peace President” – support federal kidnapping in Maryland. In some ways, the election of Barack Obama turned the political world on its head. It put a vibrant anti-war movement to sleep and turned some of the most vocal critics of President George W. Bush into cheerleaders for his policies. The party that railed against torture and the Patriot Act now gleefully embrace indefinite detention without due process and execution by drone. Oh, and by the way, the Patriot Act is cool now too! Nothing to worry about. Their guy is in charge. Of course, the Democrats don’t stand alone in their hypocrisy. Do you really think we would still find robust Republican support for blocking indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA if Mitt Romney had won in November? In fact, we still see vestiges of Republican love for the security state in the withered forms of Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham. While the Republican rank-and-file swooned over Rand Paul’s filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination to head up the CIA, McCain and Graham both lobbed rhetorical grenades at the senator from Kentucky. Perhaps they recognize that they will certainly one day regain the helm, and they don’t want to worry about any future constraints on their Orwellian vision of a well-entrenched police state. You have to at least give these old stalwarts credit for their commitment to principle – however awful that principle might be. But, for the most part, Republicans played cheerleader for Paul, while Democrats fell silent, or in some cases vocally criticized his stand against death-by-drone. The momentum of Paul’s 12-plus hour speech on the Senate floor even propelled him to a CPAC straw poll victory. But while those of us battling for civil liberties here in the good-ole US of A would like to think Paul’s filibuster woke up the Republican Party at large to the danger posed by big-government programs designed to make us more “secure,” we know the sad truth. Save a few principled members of the GOP, Paul’s support stems from fear and hatred of the current president, not a commitment to the Constitution. Once the elephants march their guy back into the White House, and they surely will at some point in the future, the old order we all know will reestablish itself. The lefties will once again fill the streets protesting whatever foreign adventure the powers-that-be concoct. Democrats will once again vilify the president as a war-monger and shredder of the Constitution. And the right’s support for blocking indefinite detention and drones will likely fade away like an old photograph in the sun. We’ve read from this same script for years. And it demonstrates a chilling fact. Most Americans devote themselves not to a set of principles, not to the Constitution, but to their political party. In America, red versus blue drives the political process. If it hurts the blue team, the read team will embrace it. If it can damage the reds, the blues jump on board. What we stood for this week will shift 180 degrees if some party boss decides it will create an advantage over the bad-guys. We’re anti-war until our guy starts the war. We stand for civil liberties until walking over them scores some points in the press. We’re for kill lists until we stand against them. Political pragmatism and party politics trump principle, and when it’s all said and done, Americans always end up with less freedom and less liberty, while both political parties consolidate power. After all, we need our party to rescue us from the evil policies of the other guy! George Washington warned against parties in his farewell address on Sept. 17, 1796. “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for the

There are currently more than two dozen states considering bills to nullify various federal gun laws around the country. Some address restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines, and others address any and all federal rules, regulations, acts, or orders on firearms, ammunition and accessories. Some of them seek nullification success by requiring all state and local agencies to refuse to enforce the specified federal acts. For example, Montana House Bill 302 says the following: A peace officer, state employee, or employee of any political subdivision is prohibited from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines and is also prohibited from participating in any federal enforcement action implementing a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines. Idaho House Bill 219 provides criminal charges for any state or local agents who help implement any new federal law, rules, regulation, or order that “requires any firearm, magazine or firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.” Bills such as these have gotten strong support from the grassroots, much like the support being given to the many sheriffs around the country who have stated that they will refuse to enforce any of the newly proposed federal gun control measures. The same thing is happening in many states to nullify NDAA indefinite detention powers. In Michigan, for example, Senate Bill 94 requires non-compliance with the unconstitutional federal act. It states, in part: “No agency of this state, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the Michigan national guard on active state service shall aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012” But some folks, mostly self-professed libertarians, have been attacking such efforts. These same people who now support “audit the fed” as a path to “ending the fed” claim such non-compliance bills as a path to nullification are worthless. They call them weak, and many times they actively oppose them. The general concern? Well, since these bills don’t require state agents to have an armed standoff with federal agents, they supposedly have “no teeth” or are just symbolic. NULLIFICATION It seems to me that people are getting confused as to just what nullification is. So let’s clarify that first. Nullification is any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null, void, or just unenforceable within a specific area. So, the question would go like this, “if the state isn’t blocking the federal government from carrying out their acts by arresting federal agents, aren’t we just saying that the state will sit by and watch the feds take our rights or kidnap us? This isn’t nullification!” First off, nullification is less about the legislation itself and more about the end result. There are many ways to nullify a law. The courts can strike a law down. The executive branch could refuse to enforce it. People in large numbers might refuse to comply. A number of states could pass a law making its enforcement illegal. Or a number a states could refuse to cooperate in any way with its enforcement. NONCOMPLIANCE WORKS Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we’ve been touting marijuana legalization efforts as a nullification of unconstitutional federal laws since our inception. And last fall, when voters in Colorado and Washington State legalized marijuana for the public at large, even the Department of Justice agreed. They put out a press release opposing these acts of the people, and referred to them as an attempt to “nullify.” Why? Well, it’s because they know the same thing we do. Persistent, relentless noncompliance on a large scale will almost always end in a complete nullification. It may take time to get there, but get there we will. The feds know it, and they don’t like it. That’s why using state noncompliance laws to nullify an unconstitutional federal act can be so effective. ENFORCEMENT Federal enforcement of an unconstitutional law relies heavily on help and assistance from state or local agencies. A quick review of recent actions by the ATF, the DEA and even the FDA makes this case quite clear. Each of these agencies publish press releases on major actions, including convictions, busts, and the like. And a vast majority of those have a statement like this, “Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies worked in partnership to carry out the investigation and execute the warrant.” Of the ten most recent field releases from the ATF, every single one of them reported on significant state and local support to carry out the investigation and the arrest. The sam

Some opponents of nullification measures – both politicians and people in the grassroots – would have you believe that such efforts in state legislatures are only symbolic and have no real effect. One has to wonder if these folks think that the personal liberty laws passed by northern states to block enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 were merely symbolic. I’m sure northern blacks spared the agony of getting dragged off by some slaver didn’t think so. And Southern states didn’t either. South Carolina listed northern nullification of fugitive slave laws as its first complaint when it explained its reasons for secession in an official “declaration of causes.” “An increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.” Pretty powerful symbolism. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 counts among the most disgusting acts ever passed by Congress. This so-called law denied a black person accused of escaping slavery any semblance of due process. A white man could basically drag a black man or woman south into slavery on the power of his word. “In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever.” Many northern states simply refused to comply and took steps to block implementation. The Michigan legislature passed its personal liberty law in 1855. The Michigan Personal Freedom Act guaranteed any man or woman claimed as a fugitive slave, “all the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus and of trial by jury.” It also prohibited the use of state or local jails for holding an accused fugitive slave, and made it a crime punishable by a fine of $500 to $1,000. Finally, it made any attempt to send a freedman South into slavery a crime. Every person who shall wrongfully and maliciously seize, or procure to be seized, any free person entitled to freedom, with intent to have such person held in slavery, shall pay a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, and be imprisoned five years in the State Prison. Note that the penalties apply to “any person,” including federal marshals and slave commissioners. Michigan wasn’t alone in passing Personal Liberty Laws. A Massachusetts Act called for the removal of any state official who aided in the return of runaway slaves and disbarment of attorneys assisting in fugitive slave rendition. Another section authorized impeachment of state judges who accepted federal commissioner positions authorizing them to prosecuted fugitive slaves. Any person holding any judicial office under the constitution or laws of this Commonwealth, who shall continue, for ten days after the passage of this act, to hold the office of United States commissioner, or any office…which qualifies him to issue any warrant or other process…under the [Fugitive Slave Acts] shall be deemed to have violated good behavior, to have given reason for the loss of public confidence, and furnished sufficient ground either for impeachment or for removal by address. The Act to Protect the Rights and Liberties of the People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts also provided criminal penalties for any person who removed a fugitive slave from the state without proving his or her servitude in a state court under the criteria set up by the act – no easy task. And like the Michigan Act, the Massachusetts law did not exempt federal agents. How effective was this “symbolic” act? After passage, there is no record of a fugitive slave ever being returned from Massachusetts. The Ohio legislature took a slightly different tack. In 1857, it passed An Act to Prevent Kidnapping. “Forcibly or fraudulently carrying off” a free black person or mulatto would get you three to eight years of hard labor. Anybody trying to take an escaped slave out of Ohio was subject to the same charges if they failed to go to the proper court and prove “ownership.” You simply cannot categorize these acts as merely “symbolic.” They were binding. They were substantive. They were enforced. And they were effective. Most importantly, they were morally justified. These days, states across the U.S. are considering bills very similar to these personal liberty l

Before the Tennessee State Senate Judiciary Committee in support of SB0250 on February 27, 2013 Hello, my name is Michael Maharrey. I’m the national communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center. I’m honored to be here. As you know, in the opinion of Attorney Gen. Robert Cooper, SB 250 violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution. I’ve read the opinion, and his basic reasoning is solid. Never-the-less, he came up with the wrong answer. I’m sure you all remember working long quadratic equations in your high school algebra class. You know that you can work each step in precisely the right sequence, but if you insert 2×2=6 in the first step, you will come up with the wrong answer at the end. Why? Because you worked the entire problem operating on a false premise. Cooper spends the bulk of his opinion correctly arguing that constitutional federal law trumps state law where it conflicts. Quite frankly, that was a waste of time. Nobody disputes that. The problem is that he incorrectly assumes that every federal act is a constitutional law and he builds his opinion on that fallacious premise. Fact: Only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are truly supreme. All the founding fathers agreed – and I mean ALL of them – any federal act that violates the Constitution is no law at all. Alexander Hamilton summed it up in Federalist 78 “Every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.” Cooper apparently wants the People of Tennessee to believe the following federal acts mentioned in Section 5b are constitutional, and supreme. -a Ban on firearms. -tracking of ammunition -federal taxes on firearm accessories Where exactly does the Constitution delegate the federal government the power to regulate firearms? It doesn’t. Some will argue that the federal government has some regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause. But, we have the Second Amendment, which puts further restrictions on the federal government. Note the most important phrase in the 2nd Amendment – “shall not be infringed.” Infringe means to interfere with. That doesn’t leave any wiggle room. Cooper mentions the possible unconstitutionality of such acts almost as an afterthought. He writes near the end of his opinion, “While the bills themselves declare that certain federal firearms regulations are unconstitutional…the responsibility for that determination rests with the judiciary, not a state legislature.” The attorney general rests his argument on Marbury v. Madison. But Cooper is misconstruing Marshall’s ruling. The Chief Justice was merely asserting that the Court CAN in fact NULLIFY an act of Congress by ruling it unconstitutional. Nowhere does Marshall assert the Court has exclusive authority to rule on constitutionality. In fact, quite the opposite. Justice Marshall wrote: The particular phraseology of the Constitution…confirms and strengthens the principle…that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. The attorney general also cites Cooper v. Aaron to assert the supremacy of the federal judiciary and that its rulings cannot be challenged.That case rests on the same bastardized interpretation of Marbury. Such a notion obliterates the constitutional system, making the Court the de facto sovereign. I shouldn’t even have to point out the absurdity of the Court making itself supreme. It’s like King Arthur claiming “supreme executive authority” because, in the words of Dennis in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, “some watery tart threw a sword at him.” Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese said this: The “logic of Cooper v Aaron .. is at war with the Constitution… at war with the very meaning of the rule of law.” We need look only to the Dred Scott case, which denied even free blacks citizenship and went on to proclaim black people inferior, to see the inherent flaw in this idea of judicial supremacy. Do you really accept that Dred Scott was legitimately the law of the land – even for one minute? Abraham Lincoln sure didn’t. In response to the ruling, he said: “If the policy of government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” Get the new book today! Fact: The Tennessee Attorney General tells us that only the federal court can determine constitutionality. Fact: Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, plus Abraham Lincoln, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson all disagree. Jefferson said the states “are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government.” And that the “government created by this compact (the Constit

Imagine this nightmare scenario. In the not-too-distant future, Congress passes a draconian, UK-style ban on all weapons. Or, maybe the Senate does it through an international treaty. Or, instead of Congress, maybe the president follows in the footsteps of FDR, who whipped up an executive order requiring people to turn in their gold. The method wouldn’t really matter. The end result would easily be one of the greatest attacks on liberty in American history. STATES NULLIFY FEDERAL GUN BAN Now imagine a response to such unconstitutional federal acts in this nightmare scenario. Your state legislator proposes a bill for your state that reads something like this: A. This legislature declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms and ammunition are a violation of the 2nd Amendment B. This legislature declares that all such acts are hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state. C. It shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. OBJECTIONS In response, you’d certainly hear things like this: –A state can’t nullify a federal act! –The Constitution says that all federal laws are supreme –Even James Madison opposed nullification. Each of these objections, and others, could easily take a full article – or two – to dismantle. So, I’ll be brief before moving on the main goal here. Article VI of the Constitution only says that federal laws are “supreme” when made “in pursuance of” the Constitution, not any old law as the lovers of power would like you to believe. As far as the Supreme Court goes? Let me say this clearly, those nine justices aren’t infallible gods. And they certainly aren’t the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. The bottom line is straightforward, and my main point, too – the Constitution means what the Founders and Ratifiers told us it means, no matter what the Congress, the President or the Supreme Court happen to say or do. UNCONSTITUTIONAL When FDR ordered you to turn in your gold, it was unconstitutional the moment he signed it. When Bill Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban, that was unconstitutional as well. George Bush violated the Constitution the moment he signed the PATRIOT Act and expanded federal control over health care with Medicare Part D. Barack Obama violated the Constitution with an undeclared war on Libya, the Affordable Care Act, NDAA “indefinite detention,” and more. The sad fact is this, every congress and every president has violated the Constitution. As the years go by, those violations get worse and more frequent. WHAT TO DO? Back to our nightmare scenario. Your state legislator gets massive support for the bill nullifying federal gun laws. It passes by a wide margin and is signed into law. It creates a ripple effect. Soon, another state follows, passing a similar law. And then another. In no time, the number reaches as high as 14. In those states, gun shops stay open, people continue to keep and bear arms. A vast majority of them do so without any trouble. Federal officials make threats. The DOJ issues a warning: states “cannot nullify an act of congress.” DHS threatens to shut down air travel in states that refuse to comply. The President says he could designate gun shop and firearms owners as agents providing material support for terrorism and subject them to indefinite detention under the NDAA. Mostly just tough talk. Sadly, the ATF conducts some high-profile raids. They shut down a small number of businesses; some people lose their liberty. But the feds lack the manpower to handle it all. So, when one city alone reaches a point where over 1000 shops are conducting business, selling guns in open defiance to the federal ban, people start to realize that mass resistance leads to the desired end result: a nullification of the unconstitutional federal act. HAPPENING TODAY While that particular nightmare scenario isn’t just happening yet, we’ve certainly been in a nightmare scenario in this country for a long, long time. We have a federal government that hates the constitution. It hates your liberty and no matter what political party is in power, or what person occupies the white house, their power always grows and your liberty is always less. We have a government that claims the power to tell you what size toilet you can have, and what kind of light bulb you can buy. It claims the power to throw you in jail for growing a plant in your backyard and it will tax you for – doing nothing. On top of it all, they claim the power to arrest and detain you – forever – without due process. That’s kidnapping. But, that hypothetical respons

Representative Brett Hildabrand of Kansas’ 17th district has introduced a bill, HB2161, to nullify the so-called “indefinite detention” powers of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). HB2161 has many co-sponsors including Representatives: Bradford, Claeys, Garber, Grosserode, Hedke, Houser, Howell, Montgomery, O’Brien, Peck, Petty, Read and Rothlisberg. This bill is currently in the Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice. This bill is different from and quite a bit stronger than previous bills introduced around the country to nullify NDAA indefinite detention. It includes kidnapping charges for federal agents attempting to arrest people in Kansas without due process. This concept stands on a strong leg, because when you remove due process from the equation, “indefinite detention” is little more than government-sanctioned kidnapping. The bill states, in part: “A person who violates the provisions of this section may also be prosecuted for, convicted of, and punished for kidnapping or aggravated kidnapping, K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5408, and amendments thereto.” Violators of this bill could be subject to the following criminal penalties, if convicted of kidnapping: Kidnapping is a severity level 3 felony with a potential of 8 years in prison. Aggravated kidnapping is a severity level l felony with a prison sentence of over 20 years being possible. Both of these felonies are subject to a fine “to not exceed $300,000”. The exact imprisonment time is determined by a variety of variables and guided by a complex grid and attorneys. “Indefinite detainers” could also be charged with a misdemeanor charge of “denial of due process” which could include “a definite term of confinement in the county jail which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed one year” and “a sum not exceeding $2,500.” This bill also states, “the provisions of this act shall not apply to the court martial of any member of the United States military pursuant to the uniform code of military justice, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47.” “When I first heard that the federal government was considering indefinite detention, I was horrified, but I was unaware of how to fight it at the state level. After reading about anti-NDAA legislation introduced in Texas, I knew we needed to attempt the same thing in Kansas,” said Representative Hildabrand. He continued, “The kidnapping portion was added to convey the seriousness of the offense. If a non-government official were to take someone against their will and hold them without access to the outside world, we would consider that a kidnapping. If a government official does the same thing, without granting access to a lawyer or the courts, I see no difference.” Representative Hildabrand’s bill will not release jurisdiction from the state of Kansas to the military. “I believe that a person either supports the whole Constitution, in every circumstance or they do not support it at all. Therefore, when any one is denied due process, I consider it an assault on the Constitution. I feel that is a key concept to convey to those serving in law enforcement and the military. If a bill violates the Constitution, it has no authority. The often misquoted Supremacy Clause states “laws pursuant to the Constitution.” The key being that it is pursuant to the Constitution to have validity.” HISTORICAL PRECEDENT A state proposal charging federal agents with kidnapping is not unprecedented in American history. In fact, such an action in the past has held the high moral ground in response to immoral, unjust, and unconstitutional federal slave-catching laws in the 19th Century. In 1850, when President Millard Fillmore signed the second “Fugitive Slave Act,” due process was under serious attack by the federal government. The law compelled people of all states to “assist” federal marshals and their deputies with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves. It brought all trials involving alleged fugitive slaves under federal jurisdiction. It included large fines for anyone who aided a slave in their escape, even by simply giving them food or shelter. On top of it, bounties were paid to commissioners in fugitive slave cases. $10 was paid if a person was sent back to slavery, and $5 if the person was allowed freedom. The federal government was paying people to capture other people and send them to slavery. The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for alleged “slaves,” and made their testimony inadmissible in court. The written testimony of the supposed slave master, on the other hand, which could be presented to the court by slave hunters, was given preferential treatment. In response, state legislatures in Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine, Kansas and Wisconsin passed what were called “personal liberty

There is a lot of chest thumping going on across America and people are demanding that one particular federal “law” or regulation or another be stopped by physical force. Is that the right course of action in every situation? Is that the only path? Or, is there another way, a less confrontational answer to the constant barrage of new and more expansive usurpation of power by a federal government seemingly bent on violating every part of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson referred to state-level resistance to federal acts as “nullification.” But he could just as easily have called it civil disobedience or non-compliance. A nullification of a federal act can take on all kinds of different forms. It often requires an entire puzzle – and each piece of that puzzle plays an important part. There’s education, outreach, non-compliance, and more. But nullification doesn’t always require a physical interposition by local agents – standing between you and the federal government. And while it sure gets the testosterone boiling, an O.K. Corral-style standoff is not required, and is almost never effective. In fact, modern times shows us that the most effective nullification efforts have no such standoffs. They’ve relied almost solely on peaceful non-compliance. Consider the state-level resistance to the 2005 Real ID act. Over the past five years, we’ve learned that a federal law can be effectively held at bay or even pushed back through non-compliance alone. There are 18 states defying Washington DC’s unconstitutional war on weed. Local sheriffs aren’t arresting DEA agents. And state legislators aren’t proposing it either. But year in and year out, more people and more states refuse to comply with the unconstitutional federal acts. As this keeps increasing, the feds keep having a harder and harder time trying to enforce their so-called laws. As big as it is, the federal government cannot be everywhere at once enforcing its so-called “laws” and regulations; it must rely on submission, compliance or “bribery” in the form of federal grants to accomplish its goals. Without local and state government co-operation, the feds are stymied and thwarted in many, if not most, of its efforts. The federal government most certainly needs compliance, if not outright assistance, from the states when it does its dirty deeds. Information-sharing, logistics assistance, access to infrastructure, help from sheriffs blocking roads, and the like. They can rarely pull things off without help from state and local officials. Just ask the DEA when they come to California. They’re never able to pull off a raid of a marijuana dispensary without the help of the local sheriff or police departments. Or, look at the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare. Without states shouldering the burden of operating and funding insurance exchanges, the entire act could collapse. The fact is this: Without state compliance and assistance, many unconstitutional federal acts are little more than a house of cards. Refusing compliance on a state or local level is a big deal – and it sets the stage for others to do the same. So, when local governments like Beaufort County North Carolina pass a resolution stating that they will not comply with federal acts, orders, rules or regulations regarding the right to keep and bear arms, this is an important part of the effort to nullify those unconstitutional federal attacks on the 2nd Amendment. And when states consider similar legislation, they can act as even bigger pieces of the puzzle. North Dakota’s HB 1183 under consideration right now would forbid any state governmental entities from providing aid and assistance to the federal government or any other governmental entity for the investigation, enforcement, and prosecution of federal firearms laws not in force as of January 1, 2013. Virginia’s HB 2340, would, “prevent any agency, political subdivision, or employee of Virginia from assisting the Federal government of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, detention, arrest, search, or seizure, under the authority of any federal statute enacted, or Executive Order or regulation issued, after December 31, 2012, infringing the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms by imposing new restrictions on private ownership or private transfer of firearms, firearm magazines, ammunition, or components thereof.” State and local legislation like these that I’ve mentioned fit the description of the “moderate middle ground” that Jefferson spoke of when he advocated for nullification. These actions are also in the tradition of Gandhi and Rosa Parks — civil disobedience and non-compliance. Become a member and support the TAC! This kind of legislation is stating the obvious; that the federal government has exceeded its delegated powers under the Constitution and therefore, their actions are “null and void and of no force” and will not be complied with at

Cross-posted from the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center. “In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. ‘Do it’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’ ‘Do it’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the names of the gods.’ ‘Do it’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’ So tell me—who lives and who dies?” In George R. R. Martin’s “A Clash of Kings” from the Game of Thrones series, the royal advisor, Varys, poses the riddle above to Tyrion, who is the “Hand of the King” – the second in command in Martin’s fictional kingdom. After leaving Tyrion to puzzle over this riddle for a while, Varys gives us his answer a bit later. “Here, then. Power resides where men believe it resides. No more and no less.” Varys then goes on to observe that power is, “A shadow on the wall,” and that “oft-times a very small man can cast a very large shadow.” In other words, Varys’ hypothetical mercenary will obey the instructions of the man who is most powerful, according to that mercenary’s own perceptions. Whatever real assets the three may have, it is the sellsword’s perception of the relative strength of the “great men” that will determine who lives and who dies. Ultimately, it is the sellsword, not the great men, who holds power over life and death. While this dialog takes place in a fictional novel, I believe that it does provide a useful insight into our own world. Here in America, more than 300 million people obey the laws which are brought to life by just 436 people and ultimately adjudicated by just nine others. This would not be possible if the 300 million refused to comply. Why do we comply, even when we may disagree with a certain policy? Because we have been brought up to believe that nearly all power resides in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, this belief is incorrect. For most powers, we should be looking to Harrisburg and the other state capitals. James Madison told us the truth of the matter, quite clearly, in Federalist #45. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. Unlike many today, Madison, who was known as the “Father of the Constitution”, believed that Washington’s powers are “few and defined” – excercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. He also believed that numerous and indefinite powers reside with the state governments. This understanding is confirmed by the Tenth Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” While they don’t always do so well on the Constitution, I do think that the Supreme Court has an excellent understanding of Varys’ riddle. Certainly, these nine people cast a very large shadow. If they don’t understand his riddle, then how else can we explain Wickard v. Filburn and related cases? In these cases, the Supreme Court has claimed that the power to regulate commerce “among the several states” enables Congress to regulate how much grain a farmer can grow on his own farm and feed to his own animals. Saying, “even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress” If the Supreme Court doesn’t understand Varys’ riddle, how can we explain this summer’s Obamacare decision which claimed that the penalty if someone declines to buy health insurance from a private company is, simultaneously, both a tax and not a tax? If the Supreme Court doesn’t understand Varys’ riddle, how do we explain the fact that it has, without ratification by the states, adopted an ad hoc Constitutional amendment process known as the “Living Constitution“? If the American people didn’t believe that power resides in Washington, would we do anything other than laugh at this nonsense? The court gets away with this absurdity only because we believe that the court has the power to do it. The reality, though, is that we have the power to make them stop. The Declaration of Independence tells us so. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Unfortunately, as a society, we continue to consent to nonsense. By now, the solution to this problem should be clear. In 1811

Have you ever tried to play a board game with a bunch of people who don’t really know the rules? Things usually start out OK, until somebody makes a questionable move. Then the arguments start, and things go downhill from there. Each player begins throwing out opinions and rule interpretations – all based on their best interests, of course. Everybody wants to win the game, so rule interpretations become more pragmatic than rational. At this point, one of two things will happen: people will just give up and quit, or some brave soul will actually grab the box and read the instructions. Once everybody clearly understands the rules, the game can continue. With defined rules, everybody enjoys the game, and the contest will end with a clear, undisputed winner. Without rules, you end up with anger, frustration and chaos. The same holds true in political systems. An orderly society requires the rule of law. Without it, those who manage to rise to positions of authority will begin exercising arbitrary power for their own benefit, just like players in a game with murky or nonexistent rules. Tyranny follows close behind. Sixteenth century political philosopher Johannes Althusius recognized the need for clearly defined rules for government to maintain order and justice in a society. “All power is limited by definite boundaries and laws. No power is absolute, indefinite, arbitrary and lawless. Every power is bound to laws, right and equity.” The U.S. Constitution provides a framework, the rulebook, if you will, for the federal government; each clause, each principle, carefully crafted for a specific reason. The entire document aims to define, constrain and control federal power. The ratifiers insisted on this rigid delegation of power. They recognized that without it, they would quickly fall into a tyrannical system like the one they fought a long, bloody war to escape. They understood the necessity of clearly defined rules that box in power-brokers. They knew from experience that vague or nonexistent constraints on authority would ultimately result in abuse of the people. Virginia ratification convention delegate Richard Henry Lee explained how the rule of law protects the citizenry. “It goes on the principle that all power is in the people, and that rulers have no powers but what are enumerated in that paper. When a question arises with respect to the legality of any power, exercised or assumed by Congress, it is plain on the side of the governed. Is it enumerated in the Constitution? If it be, it is legal and just. It is otherwise arbitrary and unconstitutional.” Note the source of power: the people. The people delegate certain powers to the government. A clearly defined written Constitution ensures the agents of that government understand their prescribed roles. Without that definition, we know what will happen. They will do as they damn well please. All in your best interest – of course. Yet some suggest Americans should just throw out that archaic, dusty Constitution and make things up as we go along. Take Georgetown University constitutional law professor Louis Michael Seidman. As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. Of course, America began following Seidman’s course of action long ago. The result? Undeclared wars, secret kill lists, $16 trillion in debt, erosion of basic civil liberties and federal meddling in just about every corner of our lives. Get the new book today! Only a fool would assert that obedience to the Constitution – following the rules – led us down this path. Refusal to follow the rules brought about the chaos Seidman described, just like trying to play a board game without rules leads to chaos. In any language, the rules of grammar create a structure, bringing words together in a meaningful way that everybody understands. Without fixed grammatical rules, words get thrown together at random. Instead of sentences and paragraphs conveying meaning, you end up with gibberish. spanning the copasetic living. understands remains with even our and intergenerational Everything differences diverse many decades of when everybody language, backgrounds That was a real sentence – lacking any grammatical structure. A political system lacking a constitutional structure makes about as much sense. “The American constitutions were to liberty what a grammar is to language: they define its parts of speech, and practically construct them into syntax.” Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man. The post Playing by the Rules appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

When Department of Justice attorney John Walsh recently referred to marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington State as attempts to nullify federal law – yes, he used the word nullify – I thought something amazing had just happened. After 17 years of states resisting federal laws on weed, the DOJ is now recognizing these efforts for what they are. Nullification. I wonder who’s going to be next in DC. Maybe the Department of Homeland Security? In response to 37 states refusing to be in compliance with the Bush-era REAL ID act last month, for the fourth time now, DHS acknowledged that they couldn’t enforce the federal law and quietly gave states yet another “temporary deferment” to some unspecified future “suitable date.” That law was supposed to be implemented five years ago this coming May. When states like Montana say they won’t comply with the REAL ID Act – ever – I think it’s likely we’ll see a future statement from a DHS official telling us how states aren’t allowed to nullify federal acts, just like the DOJ did last month regarding weed. SOME PERSONAL HISTORY When I moved to Los Angeles from my native Wisconsin back in 1995, I had never even heard of nullification in a political context. The following November, when California voters passed Prop 215 to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the impact didn’t really register. Sure, it was strange that former presidents had come to the state to lobby against the Proposition as a conflict with federal law, but I still had no idea – nor did I really care – how it would play out. Not long after that vote, a friend called me and asked me to go run some errands with her. Pretty normal stuff, I thought, until she told me what we were up to. The first stops were some standards – grocery store, get gas, things like that. I don’t even remember for sure. But one really stood out. We were going to a marijuana dispensary so she could pick up some pot which was prescribed to her by her doctor. I thought, “Dispensary? What the heck is that?” When she explained it to me as basically a retail store for weed, I was blown away. The things running through my mind were probably the same kind of things that people think today when they hear about resistance to federal law for the first time – whether it’s on weed, or gun laws, or Obamacare, or anything else. “That’s against the law,” I thought, “how can they be open and stay in business?” It didn’t take long for me to learn that saying NO to Washington DC, while often daunting, certainly isn’t impossible to succeed at doing. Today, in fact, there’s over 1000 of these kinds of stores in one city alone. From this, I’ve learned a powerful lesson: When enough people stand up and say NO to the feds, and enough states or local communities pass laws backing those people up – there’s not much that the federal government can do to force their so-called “laws” down our throats. A PREDICTION By 2006, when I decided to launch a project, the Tenth Amendment Center, I was sold on the idea of drawing a line in the sand. And in early 2009, in speaking to a CNN producer about dozens of states considering 10th amendment resolutions, I made a prediction. She was really intrigued by these non-binding resolutions that were getting passed around the country and after getting her questions answered, she finished off our conversation with what she thought was going to be a quick question, “What’s the next big thing we should be watching for?” My answer: Nullification. She had never heard of the word. So I explained some of the history behind nullification. I told her how states were refusing not only federal laws on marijuana, but resistance to the REAL ID act was succeeding too. I mentioned to her that I was seeing strong indicators that state legislators would start pushing for nullification on other issues too. She brushed me off, saying basically, “Well, if you think of anything we should pay attention too, you have my number.” HAPPENING. NOW. While CNN didn’t want to pick up on nullification as an important trend in political activism – and neither have any of the other news networks, by the way – that certainly doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Bills are increasingly being introduced, considered and passed on issues beyond weed and REAL ID. In 2013, you can expect to see NDAA “indefinite detention” nullification as a leading issue in states and local communities. Obamacare nullification will also be at the forefront. A number of states will be considering bills to nullify unconstitutional acts by the TSA. More states will be looking to nullify federal laws on marijuana. And 2nd Amendment activists are also learning that nullification of federal gun laws is the way to go – instead of hoping the federal politicians or federal judges will somehow magically limit their own power. These things, I know they’ll be happening in 2013. Consideration of bills like

by Harry Browne Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in December, 2002. A previous version of it was published on December 25, 1966, dedicated to Harry’s then 9-year-old daughter.) It’s Christmas, and I have the usual problem of deciding what to give you. I know you might enjoy many things – books, games, clothes. But I’m very selfish. I want to give you something that will stay with you for more than a few months or years. I want to give you a gift that might remind you of me every Christmas. If I could give you just one thing, I’d want it to be a simple truth that took me many years to learn. If you learn it now, it may enrich your life in hundreds of ways. And it may save your having to face many problems that have hurt people who’ve never learned it. The truth is simply this: No one owes you anything. Significance How could such a simple statement be important? It may not seem so, but understanding it can bless your entire life. No one owes you anything. It means that no one else is living for you, my child. Because no one is you. Each person is living for himself; his own happiness is all he can ever personally feel. When you realize that no one owes you happiness or anything else, you’ll be freed from expecting what isn’t likely to be. It means no one has to love you. If someone loves you, it’s because there’s something special about you that gives him happiness. Find out what that something special is and try to make it stronger in you, so that you’ll be loved even more. When people do things for you, it’s because they want to – because you, in some way, give them something meaningful that makes them want to please you, not because anyone owes you anything. No one has to like you. If your friends want to be with you, it’s not out of duty. Find out what makes others happy so they’ll want to be near you. No one has to respect you. Some people may even be unkind to you. But once you realize that people don’t have to be good to you, and may not be good to you, you’ll learn to avoid those who would harm you. For you don’t owe them anything either. Living your Life No one owes you anything. You owe it to yourself to be the best person possible. Because if you are, others will want to be with you, want to provide you with the things you want in exchange for what you’re giving to them. Some people will choose not to be with you for reasons that have nothing to do with you. When that happens, look elsewhere for the relationships you want. Don’t make someone else’s problem your problem. Once you learn that you must earn the love and respect of others, you’ll never expect the impossible and you won’t be disappointed. Others don’t have to share their property with you, nor their feelings or thoughts. If they do, it’s because you’ve earned these things. And you have every reason to be proud of the love you receive, your friends’ respect, the property you’ve earned. But don’t ever take them for granted. If you do, you could lose them. They’re not yours by right; you must always earn them. My experience A great burden was lifted from my shoulders the day I realized that no one owes me anything. For so long as I’d thought there were things I was entitled to, I’d been wearing myself out – physically and emotionally – trying to collect them. No one owes me moral conduct, respect, friendship, love, courtesy, or intelligence. And once I recognized that, all my relationships became far more satisfying. I’ve focused on being with people who want to do the things I want them to do. That understanding has served me well with friends, business associates, lovers, sales prospects, and strangers. It constantly reminds me that I can get what I want only if I can enter the other person’s world. I must try to understand how he thinks, what he believes to be important, what he wants. Only then can I appeal to someone in ways that will bring me what I want. And only then can I tell whether I really want to be involved with someone. And I can save the important relationships for those with whom I have the most in common. It’s not easy to sum up in a few words what has taken me years to learn. But maybe if you re-read this gift each Christmas, the meaning will become a little clearer every year. I hope so, for I want more than anything else for you to understand this simple truth that can set you free. Harry Browne (RIP 1933-2006), the author of Why Government Doesn’t Work and many other books, was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, a co-founder of DownsizeDC, and the Director of Public Policy for the American Liberty Foundation. See his website. The post Liberty: A Gift That Lasts a Lifetime appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson The Constitution was written for times such as these. The debate over gun control raging in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school vividly illustrates the need for constitutional chains. Emotions boiled over after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. Americans reacted in stunned disbelief, anger and a deep sense of sadness. Questions chased each other through the airwaves and across the Internet. How could anybody do such a thing – to children? And how can we stop it from ever happening again? Most people recognize they will never understand what drives a person to gun down innocent kids in a school. We ask the first question rhetorically, more an expression of our incredulity rather than a query demanding acknowledgement. But the second question, ah, that one demands an answer. How do we stop it from ever happening again? Human beings generally suffer from myopia, but politicians take delusions of grandeur to the highest level. They want you to believe that the right policy, properly implemented, will solve any problem and prevent any calamity. You just have to let them do their thing. President Obama vowed to use the power of his office to prevent another tragedy like the massacre in Connecticut. “We can’t accept events like this as routine,” he said. “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage? That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that the violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?” And the president called for action. “We can’t tolerate this anymore,” he added. “These tragedies must end, and to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and it is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this.” As the emotions boil through our very souls, how can we argue with the president? We must DO something. Surely we can come up with a public policy solution that will prevent a deranged gunman from mowing down children. Our “collective grief” demands solutions, so we turn to the government. Politicians stand ready, all too happy to act on our behalf. Ban assault rifles. Ban high capacity clips. Ban all guns. Just do something. Let’s be honest; we can’t look at the photo of a 6-year-old child ruthlessly gunned down in the hallway of his school and not feel a sense of rage. We can’t look into the eyes of a grieving mother and hear her voice cracking as she tries to come to grips with the fact that her little girl will never come home again and not bend under the overwhelming pressure of sadness. Pain. Grief. Our humanity demands such a response. But raw emotion should never drive policy decisions. Of course, politicians love emotion. Rahm Emanuel summed up the mentality of the modern policy-maker when he said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” The mindless mantra repeated by a grieving citizenry clamoring for lawmakers to “just do something,” empowers politicians to do just about anything, often with dreadful long-term consequences. “Doing something” after planes flew into the World Trade Center ultimately gave us genital groping at the airport, Patriot Act spying, long, bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, presidential kill lists, torture and indefinite detention. In retrospect, perhaps a little pause for some post-9/11 thought and consideration before plunging forward and “doing something” would have been apropos. But make no mistake – your government officials don’t want that kind of pause. They don’t want a rational debate. They don’t want careful consideration. They want power. And an emotionally distraught citizenry gives them an avenue to seize it. Keep in mind, even after the current tragedy fades into the yellowing pages of a history book, the powers seized by the government in the wake of the calamity will remain tightly held. And you will never get back the accompanying loss of liberty. That’s why we must apply the chains of the Constitution. For times such as these. The framers and ratifiers of the Constitution understood our “leaders” would always seek to extend their own power. So, they insisted on a Constitution limiting the authority of the federal government to specific, enumerated objects. Then they went a step further, demanding a Bill of Rights “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.” Get the new book today! Adherence to the Constitution prevents a reckless trampling of basic rights in the wake of an emotional tragedy or national emergency. It serves as a check on federal power and forces careful co

Obamacare can still be stopped. And no, it’s not going to be stopped by Pelosi and Boehner – or Roberts and Scalia. It’s going to be stopped by people like you – pressing your state to resist. In fact, Obamacare’s ability to become reality in the long term is like a house of cards. The act is not viable economically and unstable politically. The only way it can gain a foothold at this point is through compliance in the states. Resistance will kill it. In fact, there are 4 ways that you can resist Obamacare on a state level. Here’s a quick overview of each: 1. Reject the Exchanges. States were “given an option” – run the exchange, partner with the feds on running it, or leave it to DC to figure out. It doesn’t matter what “cards we were dealt” – as some governors are saying. Running an unconstitutional program for the feds is just plain wrong. And the first – and easiest – thing for states to do is to just say no. Shifting the burden for health insurance exchanges to the feds effectively sabotages the implementation of Obamacare. The federal government needs states to be complicit to pull this off. Otherwise, these decisions on who was creating exchange wouldn’t even have been included in the first place. The fact of the matter is that DC doesn’t have the resources or the manpower to run these exchanges in every state. Some analysts are saying that they only have the capacity to do so in 30 states, and any more than that will lead towards a collapse of the system. Right now? Contact your governor and urge him or her to reject the creation of an exchange. Or, get your state representative to introduce a bill banning it. You can even use this bill in states where Governors have made the wrong choice. Make a state exchange illegal with a veto-proof majority and you’ve just made your DC-loving governor irrelevant. You can find model legislation online at tenthamendmentcenter.com/banexchanges Also, share this short video on the issue from the Goldwater Institute: 2. Reject the Medicaid Expansion. During the Obamacare case before the Supreme Court, Rob Natelson and his colleagues at the Independence Institute argued that the law’s provisions forcing the states to expand Medicaid were unconstitutional. Neither the Constitution nor case law, they pointed out, permits the federal government to use federal spending programs to coerce the states. Seven of the nine justices agreed with them, essentially adopting the arguments advanced in their brief. As a result, the states may consider freely whether or not to accept additional federal funds for the Medicaid expansion. Accepting federal funds might seem to bring the states short-term fiscal benefits. But the fiscal risks of doing so are very great—perhaps eventual bankruptcy. Financial and practical matters aside, helping the federal government run an unconstitutional program by participating in it on a state level is just plain wrong. Get model legislation for your state HERE. 3. Pass a Health Freedom Act or Amendment. Already passed in more than a dozen states – three of which were in November, well-after the Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of Obamacare, the Health Freedom Act is a powerful step towards the nullification of Obamacare. It is introduced as either standard legislation or as a proposal to your state’s constitution, often requiring a vote of the people. It often includes language such as this: “An act banning the imposition of any penalty, tax, fee or fine on those who do not purchase health insurance.” According to Michael Cannon of the CATO Institute, in order to operate an exchange, state employees would have to determine eligibility for ObamaCare’s “premium assistance tax credits.” Those tax credits trigger penalties against employers (under the employer mandate) and residents (under the individual mandate). In addition, state employees would have to determine whether employers’ health benefits are “affordable.” A negative determination results in fines against the employer. These are key functions of an exchange. Thus, if the state establishes an exchange, then that law would violate state law by indirectly compelling employers and individual residents to participate in a health care system. That sort of law is precisely what the Health Care Freedom Act exists to prevent. But it’s not just exchanges. This would prevents the adoption of any health care policies that are inconsistent with the Health Care Freedom Act. Under Obamacare, that will likely be many. Get more information at tenthamendmentcenter.com/obamacare/ Get the New Documentary Today! 4. Pass a Federal Health Care Nullification Act. If you like the idea of being on the side of the Constitution, then this step is for you. It’s the toughest to get through for sure, but it doesn’t hurt to try to get this introduced and debated while working on any of the previous three steps, the low-hanging fruit. This Act, model legislation from the Te

When talking with people about executing a state-based strategy to devolve power away from the federal government, I often run into immediate and vigorous protests. “Our state legislators are spineless. They will never pass any of your legislation.” “The state will never risk its federal funding. We can’t stand up to the feds.” “The party establishments are too entrenched; we can’t get anything done at the state level.” These, and many other barriers, do indeed stand in the way of effectively utilizing nullification at the state level. But most people take too short of a view and get discouraged. They focus on what cannot be done today and miss the bigger picture – what we can do today to set the stage for what we will do tomorrow. We have a long war ahead of us, and we won’t win it through one decisive battle or a quickly executed short-game. The tide in the Pacific during World War II turned in favor of the Allies after the Battle of Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway. But the United States still faced a determined Japanese military entrenched across a vast expanse of the Pacific. After its costly victory in the Battle of Midway, the American Pacific command didn’t try to win the war by immediately attacking Japan or its Pacific strongholds, but instead executed an island hopping strategy that bypassed the most heavily fortified Japanese positions. The leapfrogging strategy focused Allied resources on less strongly defended positions that could support a further drive toward the Japanese mainland. The strategy effectively cut off Japanese strongholds like Rabaul, leaving them to “wither on the vine.” Operation Cartwheel kicked off in the summer of 1943, but the Allies weren’t in a position to actually invade Japan until the fall of Okinawa in June of 1945. The U.S. and Allied forces used a long-range strategy executed over a two-year period to win the War in the Pacific. It will take an equally long-range strategy to rein in an out of control federal government. Americans tend to want instant results. But the U.S. didn’t reach this point in just a few presidential administrations. It took more than 75 years of usurpation to amass $16 trillion in debt, and strip virtually all power and authority away from the states and the people. State nullification may well be our last hope. But we simply can’t expect every state to immediately stand up and begin pushing back against the federal government. Some states do currently have a climate conducive to nullification efforts on certain issues. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center indicate at least 10 states will seek to nullify the detention provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Act. Currently, at least 17 states will refuse to implement state-run health insurance exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and several states will push legislation to more aggressively block implementation of the national health care program. Eighteen states have legalized medical marijuana, and at least seven other states will consider bills to create medicinal cannabis programs in the upcoming legislative season. But many state legislatures won’t consider any kind move that could potentially upset the apple cart. They can’t afford to. For example, my home state of Kentucky receives more than $1.50 in federal funding for every dollar collected in federal taxes. We are a welfare state, and Kentucky lawmakers know it. So, should people in states like Kentucky simply give up and live with the fact that bureaucrats in D.C. will run their lives forevermore? Of course not! Like Allied forces in the Pacific during WWII, folks in these states will have to play a long-game, focusing on winning small victories, consolidating positions, then moving on to the next battle. Start by networking various groups in the state and educating others in the principles of nullification, founding history and state sovereignty. This can begin to change the general climate in the state and make it more favorable for future activism. Most Americans don’t know what nullification is, much less its rich history. This has to change before we can expect our lawmakers to actively push nullifying legislation. Target specific unfriendly representatives and senators, and actively campaign to remove them from office. You say your lawmakers simply won’t consider nullification or state sovereignty related legislation? Your governor kowtows to the feds? Then replace them. Support a governor who will stand up for the sovereignty of the state. Start a PAC and raise money for nullification friendly candidates. Again considering Kentucky as an example – a huge number of representatives won new terms without any opposition in the last election. How can we expect lawmakers to consider the will of their constituents when they have no fear of losing their jobs? If you live in a district with an unopposed representative, challenge him or her. Even if you lose, you will inject

Sometimes people lash out at us Tenthers because they’re scared. They have some preconceived notion of the kinds of things we support, or oppose. Others are just ignorant. They feel that devolving power outside of DC means that the things they love cannot be done. It’s the feds or bust! That’s their view. And still others who attack people as being Tenthers do so because they’re just good old-fashioned hypocrites. They hate Constitutional limits sometimes and gladly praise them at other times. In all these cases, people are using the word “Tenther” as a slur, of sorts. If that’s the case, I say bring on the attacks! But, I digress. SCARED The most prominent example of someone who’s scared is Rachel Maddow. Ok, well…she’s probably not frightened herself and is likely just a fear monger, but her M.O. is to play off the fear of others who are. In this case, people like Rachel like to conflate support for limiting federal power with racism, support of slavery, and other nefarious causes. America has a horrible history with hatred based on race. From the slaughter of countless indigenous Indians, to slavery, discrimination against Irish, Jews and others – this country has not been a shining example of love, peace and freedom over the years. And add to that the fact that some prominent people in favor of racial segregation in the mid-20th century used the Tenther tool of Nullification to back up their views – and you’ve got a recipe for some legitimate fear. I won’t get into all the little details right here. But, to be clear, American Indians weren’t killed in large numbers due to federalism. Nullification wasn’t used by people to defend slavery. It was used by abolitionists. And those who advocated for these principles to defend the morally reprehensible practice of segregation were not only an anomaly, they were just plain wrong. IGNORANT Then we have the ignorant types who think that being a Tenther is bad because it would eliminate some favorite program of theirs. There’s certainly some fear at play in this group as well, but I think it’s primarily because they’re simply misinformed. Most of the times, these folks will cite a list of programs that would be ended under our so-called “radical” view of the 10th Amendment. They then end it there as if the only way to run virtually any program that helps people is through the good graces of the politicians in Washington DC. Never will you hear them saying things like, “These Tenthers want to eliminate social security. While I think it’s better to have this done by the Federal government, those who are in favor of this as a government program shouldn’t worry as much as some tell you to – because under the Tenther view, such programs could be carried out by the states.” No, they never say that. They also never seem to even think that the market could do a better job than the government at whatever program they’re worried about losing, but, that’s a different conversation altogether. Either way, they’re either blind or ignorant to the fact that someone or something else could possibly do what they want done. HYPOCRITES Finally, we have the fakes. These are the people that rail on Tenthers as evil, or scary, or dangerous to the status quo on the one hand, but use the same talking points on the other. Nan Aron is one of these. She’s the founder and president of Alliance for Justice, “a national association of over 100 organizations, representing a broad array of groups committed to progressive values and the creation of an equitable, just, and free society.” In general, these are not bad goals at all (depending on how they’re accomplished, of course!) But in the Huffington Post yesterday, Aron wrote an alarmist piece about Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito talking, tongue-in-cheek, about the 10th Amendment. Here’s what Alito had to say in a recent speech: “It is hard not to notice that Congress’ powers are limited. And you will see there is an amendment that comes right after the First Amendment, and there’s another that comes after the Ninth Amendment. Those are just a couple of examples.” Not a thumping level of support for the 10th, but at least the guy acknowledged it. But this one line set Aron on fire. Her article seems to be intended to serve as a warning to people that Alito is a) a Tenther and b) this is something every good person should fear. The idea that Alito is a strict constitutionalist Tenther is so laughable I won’t address it beyond this: Sam sounds like a Tenther when his political opponents are in power, but like the national Republican party, he rarely holds to that rhetoric when decision-time comes. On point B, Aron fits into the first two categories. She not only sounds frightened, but also comes across as ignorant to the fact that maybe the federal government isn’t the best organization to do the things she cherishes so deeply. Here’s an excerpt: The Tenthers rely on a pinched and largely

Thank you. I could easily be done with those two simple words. They’re worth repeating, though. Thank you. I know there’s a lot of people out there who say it, but I think I’m the luckiest man on earth. And not just for the standard reasons, but because I’ve been given a great gift in my life. Yes, the standard things. No, they’re not really “standard” – I’m referring to the types of things that most people who are expressing thanks will mention. For example, on my ninth anniversary with Sarah Beth Rosa last month, I counted myself the luckiest man alive. I certainly am. I’m also thankful for the great friends and family members that I love and who love me unconditionally. I am thankful to have a good roof over my head, and so much more. But tonight, I’m feeling unusually thankful for things that I don’t always reflect on. And while that’s likely driven by the holiday this week, my gratitude is sincere – and strong. I’m thankful to be alive – right now. In an age of growing tyranny, I’m grateful. In a time where the so-called land of the free has a government that spies on you, claims the power to kidnap you, will fine you for not buying something and takes your money to keep failing mega-corporations afloat, I’m thankful. Living in America means that the government can spy on you, read your emails, and monitor your bank accounts. It will bomb and occupy other countries in your name, lock people up for growing a plant, and treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent for the simple act of having purchased an airline ticket. But through all this evil, I’m thankful to be here. Now. You see, there’s no greater time for a lover of liberty to be alive than when liberty is in extreme danger. That time is now. Samuel Adams was given the gift of being alive at a time when he was needed to rise up against the tyranny of the king. Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and Henry David Thoreau were given the gift of resisting and undermining the crimes of slavery. And today, you and I have been given a gift. We are alive right now when tyranny is advancing faster than it has in a long time. War, mass incarceration, a growing police state and the destruction of the currency. We are lucky to have been given this great opportunity to carry the torch of liberty in its time of maximum danger. When I’m speaking positively of people standing up to these evils and resisting them locally – I’ll occasionally hear someone talk about how things will never turn around. Even in the face of hearing about local communities resisting federal attacks on due process, or states rejecting federal mandates or bans on plants, they tell me that things are far too gone. With all the aggressive attacks on liberty that happen every single day, this kind of defeated emotional response is understandable. But every step forward – no matter how small – gives me hope. Every new individual who comes to the position that they no longer want to support the criminal cabal keeps me pushing harder. And when I’m feeling crushed by the weight of the empire, or 18-hour workdays, or the setbacks that happen all the time too, a quick read of something written by the late, great Harry Browne always gets me back on track. Here’s the part that gets me: ******* E.B. White, the author of children’s books, once said (slightly paraphrased), “As long as there is one honest man, as long as there is one upright woman, the future is not hopeless, because the contagion may spread.” If you’re that honest man or that upright woman, the future isn’t hopeless, because your example may inspire others. If you speak up when you have the chance – calling into radio shows, writing letters to the editor, participating in Internet forums, just talking with friends or business associates without sacrificing your position – the future isn’t hopeless, because you never know who will hear or read your words. Become a member and support the TAC! You may say just the right thing to finally bring around someone who’s close to crossing the line to being active – someone with far more resources, far more talent, far more skills, or far more influence than you have – someone who has the ability to multiply your efforts a hundred or a thousand times over, just because of who that person is. No, you can’t change America all by yourself. Neither can you do so just by wishing for it. But you might be the one who inspires one or more people who can make an enormous difference. Are you that honest man, that upright woman? If you are, the future is not hopeless. ******* Thank you, Harry Browne, your words ring true more and more each year. The post Thankful. Even in the Face of Tyranny appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.