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.

“There’s not much attention paid to the Constitution in Washington. There’s not much attention paid to it by our executive branch of government. And we don’t get much protection from our courts. So one thing that might finally happen from this if the people finally feel so frustrated that they can’t get the results out of Washington — They’re going to start thinking about options. They might start thinking about nullification and a few things like that.” – Rep. Ron Paul NULLIFICATION? For anyone unfamiliar with the concept of state nullification, it was the idea expressed by then sitting vice president Thomas Jefferson when he authored what came to be known as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. The resolutions made the case that the federal government is a creature of the states, and that states have the authority to judge the constitutionality of the federal government’s laws and decrees. He also argued that states should refuse to enforce laws which they deem unconstitutional. James Madison wrote a similar resolution for Virginia that same year, in which he asserted that whenever the federal government exceeds its constitutional limits and begins to oppress the citizens of a state, that state’s legislature is “duty bound” to interpose its power and prevent the federal government from victimizing its people. Very similar to Jefferson’s concept of nullification, Madison’s doctrine of interposition differed in some small but important ways. These two documents together came to be known as The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (or Resolves), of 1798. Both were written in response to the dreaded Alien and Sedition Acts, and the phrase, “Principles of ’98” became shorthand for nullification and / or interposition. Over time, “The Principles of ’98” would be invoked by many other states, many times for a variety of issues. A LITTLE MORE But in order to best-understand what Nullification IS, you should first understand some things nullification is NOT. Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state. So just what IS nullification and how does it happen? Nullification is any act or set of acts, which has as its end result, a particular federal law being rendered null and void, or just plain unenforceable in your area. Nullification often begins with members of your state legislature declaring a federal act unconstitutional and then committing to resist its implementation. It usually involves a bill, passed by both houses and signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law, or it might even amend your state constitution. In this case, it is quite simply a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce a particular federal law it deems unconstitutional. The same process can happen on a local level too. Your county board of commissioners or city council might take up a measure that rejects or resists a federal law. Once it gets passed, all local agencies might be required to refuse compliance with any federal agents trying to enforce the federal act in question. In either case, Nullification carries with it the force of state or local law. It cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the U.S .Constitution. It cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order. It cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court if the people in the state reject the Court’s opinion. It is the people of a state or local commnunity asserting their rights, acting as a political society in its highest sovereign capacity. It is the moderate, middle way that wisely avoids harsh remedies like secession on the one hand, and slavish, unlimited submission on the other. It is the constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal laws. With the exception of a constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot oppose (except perhaps rhetorically), these actions to nullify an unconstitutional federal law without resorting to extra-legal measures or violence. But such measures would more than likely backfire, since most Americans still believe might does not make right. There is no question as to whether or when such “official” nullification will happen: It has ALREADY HAPPENED. In fact, not only has it happened recently, it has been a

“Wait till the next one is done.” I’ve heard that from so-called conservative activists for years now. Some of you said you were supporting the Tea Party candidates in 2010. And, if that didn’t work, then you’d use your time, money and energy locally to nullify. But, that Tea Party class sure didn’t stop the big government train wreck. Instead of moving on to nullification, you decided to wait again. You were going to hold out and see how the Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare before working on nullification. And, as usual, the supremes failed the constitution and your liberty. After that – “Nullification? Yeah, I support it,” I heard you say that many times. But it was always with this caveat: “This is the most important presidential election in history, so we can use nullification later to hold Romney’s feet to the fire after we get rid of Obama.” So, again, you decided to wait. Instead of focusing all your energy on nullification at the state and local level, you decided to donate your hard earned time and money to candidates for federal office. THE SIREN SONG Today, election day has come and gone. On a national level, “Vote the bums out” is dead as a strategy. Once again, it has proven to be a complete and utter failure. It always has been, and always will be. That’s why you see all the pundits, the politicians, the media and all the experts filling your head with the siren song of national elections. This kind of thing isn’t new, either. When conservatives voted to oust the big government bums from the Clinton administration, they were had. Bush and the Republicans came in and made government even bigger and more intrusive. Those criminals left us all with a huge expansion of federally-run healthcare, national control over education, bailouts and more. The result? When you vote out the big government bums – you get different big-government bums. And they’re usually worse. But it’s not just conservatives who’ve been ripped off by these crooks. When liberals ousted the Bush administration, most were opposed to the wars, to the attacks on civil liberties, Guantanamo Bay, the aggressive war on drugs and more. With the Obama administration, they got new wars, an extended patriot act, excuses about not closing Guantanamo, a ramping up of the war on drugs, NDAA “indefinite detention,” and the list goes on. There’s nothing liberal about Barack Obama. He’s just an expansion of what the left hated about his predecessor. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN Look, there’s no cavalry coming. No one is going to ride into DC on a white horse, and save the Constitution and your liberty. Washington DC is never going to fix itself. Never. And no matter how many times the political class urges you to throw away your time and money on federal elections to get the society you want, it will never happen. The whole thing is a big scam. So instead of getting suckered on this garbage even one more time, one more day, or one more minute, how about pledging right now to take that action you’ve been afraid to take for so long. Nullification. NO MORE FEAR Maybe you’ve been afraid because you believe some of the propaganda that the elite uses against nullification. Maybe you’re just scared to resist and are hoping for an easier solution. Maybe you fear the unknown. How will nullification play out, right? Get the Nullification Owner’s Manual! Maybe you don’t even know why you’re afraid, but you are. You’ve been saying for years that you’ll support nullification “later.” You keep procrastinating in the hope that the simple methods are going to work. But they don’t. Pressing a button every couple years has failed you. Sending in cash to candidates from the comfort of your home has failed you. Waiting for some unelected, unaccountable, politically-connected lawyers to rule in your favor has failed you. That’s not going to change. So it’s time to set aside your fear, your hesitation, your patience, and do what’s right. It’s time to take a different path – one that you know is already having success. It’s time to show the courage that this country was founded upon, and that liberty requires. Your country needs you. Your community needs you. Your family needs you. Liberty needs you. History is knocking on your door. Answer it. This has always been your calling. The time to Nullify is now. The post No More Waiting. Nullify Now! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

ten·ther \ten-ther\ noun 1. A person who supports the Constitution: every issue, every time, no exceptions and no excuses. 2. Those who actively utilize the principles of decentralization to advance the cause of liberty. see also: Tenther Movement Ron Paul is out. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are not going to win. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney represent the classic “lesser of two evils” situation. Rocky Anderson and Virgil Goode are barely a blip on the radar. Look, I’ve heard all the arguments in this presidential election. A vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama. A win for Mitt means the right will go back to sleep like they were under Bush. The lesser of two evils is still evil. And more. Like every other presidential election, people everywhere are shouting from the rooftops, “this is the most important vote of your lifetime!” But, all these arguments are missing the point entirely. The 2012 Presidential election is not a make-or-break election. America, as the Founders envisioned, has already been broken for a long, long time. BROKEN That’s no understatement, either. Pick a clause of the Constitution, and it has likely been violated to the point of nonexistence. Read through the Bill of Rights and you’ll see how few of those essential liberties are truly in place today. We live under a federal dictatorship of sorts. Sure, you get to choose your oppressors every few years, but those people still claim the power to do plenty. They tell you what kind of light bulbs you can own and how big your toilet can be. They will arrest you for growing a plant in your backyard and fine you for not purchasing an insurance product. They relentlessly spy on you, monitor phone calls and read emails. They drop bombs wherever they want around the world – Constitutional requirements for Congressional declarations of war are now considered an anachronism. If they don’t like your opposition to what they do, they’ll use a drone to watch your every move, then kidnap you and keep you in a secret military prison. They call that one “indefinite detention.” Free speech “zones,” business and environmental regulations that should be the purview of the states or the people, corporate bailouts and endless excuses for their lies, rules and failures. It’s never-ending. And, all the while, they keep debasing the currency in the hopes that their house of cards continues to stand. Ole King George would have salivated at this kind of power. But, today, some people seem to think that a simple vote every few years is all they need to do to advance the cause of the Constitution and your liberty. They’re wrong. TOP FIVE So what’s a good Tenther to do on November 6, 2012? Like my friend Steve Palmer wrote in a recent article, the #1 most important thing is not what happens on November 6th. What really matters is: “what we do on 364 other days of the year. If we go back to sleep because we’re happy that the winner is wearing a red jersey or a blue one, we’re doomed to be exploited. If we stay vigilant and ensure that the use of force by government is limited to its Constitutionally legitimate role, then society will bring the blessings of prosperity to all of us.” No, I’m not trying to talk you out of voting for one of the presidential candidates, or even into voting for a different one. Over 90% of potential voters are already dead set on who they’re going to vote for – or against, most likely. My goal here is to encourage you to do more. Since you’re already set on who you’ll be voting against, spending time reading, watching, or complaining about any of the candidates is nothing more than a daily soap opera. You can certainly spend your time far more wisely – and help us all in support of the Constitution. So here’s my list of the top-5 things a good Tenther can do this election season. 5. Vote for Good State and Local Candidates It seems like everyone forgets about the little guys. But these are the people that can change the world. Like the Constitutional structure that the founders gave us, a revolution in thought and action isn’t a top-down proposal. It’s bottom up. So check out your state and local campaigns and vote for people that support the Constitution and your liberty. There are some great ones out there, surprisingly enough. Here are a few examples: Aaron Libby is running for re-election in the Maine state house. He’ll be introducing one of the strongest Obamacare nullification bills in the country. John Logan Jones is also in Maine – and a strong challenger too. He was well-positioned to run for Congress, but recognized the absolute need for state governments to take “an activist role in reasserting powers” stolen by the feds. My friend Anthony Rice is running for city council in Rancho Cucamonga, California. And Mark Hopp is running for county commissioner in Alamance County, North Carolina. These are the kind of guys who will have absolutely no qualms pushing legislation to nullify NDAA (like 16 com

Get the new book today! Jose owns a little market on a big-city street corner. Business is pretty good, but he has a problem with neighborhood thugs coming in – shoplifting, harassing customers and basically making a nuisance of themselves. Jose deals with them as best he can, shooing off troublemakers with a little intimidation of his own manufactured by Louisville Slugger. Every once in a while he calls the cops. Business continues to grow. Then one day, Bruno walks into the store. Bruno serves as muscle for the largest gang in the city. He suggests that his syndicate can provide “protection” for a nominal fee. Bruno strongly suggests Jose accept the generous offer. Of course, Jose ponies up the cash. Sure enough, the neighborhood thugs disappear. No more petty theft. No more loitering. No more customer harassment. But every so often, Bruno makes a visit. Jose knows that a visit from Bruno means the cost of protection is about to rise. On top of that, Bruno’s associates eventually begin dropping in frequently at the store. They help themselves to merchandise, intimidate customers and basically create a nuisance. But unlike the neighborhood thugs who used to cause problems, Jose can’t merely shoo Bruno’s people away with a baseball bat. He tried it once. They quickly reminded him that they work for Bruno. Bruno runs the neighborhood for the syndicate. Jose can’t even call the cops. They won’t come. Bruno’s boss has them under his thumb. Jose knows he stands powerless to halt the mischief. While it caused some difficulties and cost him a little money, Jose was able to deal with the unorganized neighborhood thugs that used to hassle him. But he finds he had no control whatsoever over Bruno and his clan. During a recent discussion about devolving power back to the states and constraining the federal government in its constitutionally prescribed role, a big-government proponent argued that we must maintain a strong hand in Washington D.C. to protect minorities. “The states have proved they can’t be trusted to protect the rights of the people, especially minorities,” he quipped. This narrative has dominated American politics since the 1950s. Southern governors and legislators appealed to the idea of “states’ rights” to perpetuate segregation. Mention state sovereignty and proponents of a strong federal government will quickly call up images of Birmingham police officers firing water cannons at black people, and remind us that Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus ordered National Guard troops to block the entrance of Little Rock Central High School in order to keep nine African-American students out. Most Americans consider the victories in the Civil Rights battles of the 50s and 60s shining examples the successful application of federal power. In fact, brave heroes such as Rosa Parks, and countless nameless folks who simply refused to submit any longer, ultimately won the victory. But the federal government did play a role and helped break down an evil system of segregation in the South. But as we say in Kentucky, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again. In fact, the indignities of segregation pale in comparison with some of the evils perpetrated by the feds. The reasoning goes something like this: certain state governments proved they will oppress minorities in the middle of the 20th Century; therefore we need a bigger, more powerful central government to force the states not to oppress minorities today. But it wasn’t the state governments that rounded up more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans and locked them up behind barbed wire during WWII. It wasn’t the state governments that studied the unchecked progression of syphilis in poor black sharecroppers in Tuskegee, Ala. Federal officials told the subjects of these studies that they were receiving free government health care. They never told them that they had syphilis, nor did doctors ever treat them for the disease. The victims were told their treatments were for “bad blood.” And it wasn’t the state governments that sprayed low-income residents in St. Louis with toxic, radioactive particles. Dr. Lisa Martino-Taylor recently uncovered documents revealing that the feds blew a fine powder made of zinc cadmium sulfide into the air over poor neighborhoods. Cadmium was even then a known toxin, although federal officials claimed in the 1990s that the residents were not subjected to dangerous levels. But Martino-Taylor says she also found indirect evidence that the powder was laced with a fluorescent additive – a suspected radiological compound. “There are strong lines of evidence that there was a radiological component to the St. Louis study,” she said. In fact, in 1993 a congressional study confirmed conducting radiological testing occurred in Tennessee and some western states. The professor of sociology at St. Louis Community College said documents reveal the spraying occurred during two separate periods between 1953 and 1954 and again from

Get the New Documentary Today! the following is based off a speech given at LibertyFest NYC on 10-13-12 Federal campaigns have been a failure. And I’m not talking about elections alone. For over a 100 years – and probably longer – people have been suing and marching and voting bums out. And the result? It doesn’t matter which political party is in Washington DC – or what person occupies the white house – federal power always grows and your liberty is always less. The liberty movement is ready for a different path. I’m not talking about something new. I’m talking about getting on board with something that’s already happening and already winning. It’s a path that we’ve been advocating for at the Tenth Amendment Center since 2006. ONE. What’s next for the liberty movement? I can answer that in one simple word. Weed. People have been smoking, growing, buying and selling weed for a long time. Some people get punished for it – and many more actually get away with it. And in my state of california – eventually enough people were on board with this that the political activists decided to take action too – and in 1996, proposition 215 was passed which “legalized” cannabis for certain, limited purposes. Over the years, the feds have absolutely hated this. At first, they were extremely aggressive in trying to stop people from growing, selling and consuming this plant. But people did it anyways. And in time – more people got on board and the risk became less. Pretty soon, a number of businesses began popping up around the industry – to the point of what we have today – thousands of businesses around the state either directly or indirectly involved in the marijuana business. This is a market that is nearly impossible to shut down. In fact, today where I live in Los Angeles, there’s literally between 1000-1200 retail marijuana stores – that’s in one city alone.. There are more stores selling marijuana in LA than there are Starbucks and 7-11’s combined. California, though, hasn’t been alone. By 2005, there were 10 states that were doing the same – and violating federal laws on weed. It was that year that a Supreme Court case was decided on the issue, and in the famous case, Gonzalez vs Raich, the Supremes ruled against the state marijuana laws. As I was learning about government, I always thought that if the Supreme Court ruled against a law in one state, other states which had similar ones would repeal them. But after that case was decided in 2005, not one single state repealed their medical marijuana laws. And today, another 7 have gotten on board too. The supreme court may have an opinion on marijuana – or just about anything else – but let ’em come and try to enforce it! IT WORKS This is something that we would call Nullification. The way WE define nullification is like this – it’s “any act or set of actions which has as its result a particular law being rendered null, void – or even just unenforceable in your state.” And you could actually take this on down to the county, town, or local level. While national efforts to end wars, stop NSA spying, repeal the patriot act, overturn health insurance mandates, audit the fed – and more – have all failed – they all fail – as these 17 states are showing us, Nullification works. And this November, when people go to the polls, the most important vote isn’t being cast for Obama or Romney or Gary Johnson. It’s not being cast for a Senate or House race. It’s not being cast for anything on a federal level. This November, the most important votes are being cast in Massachusetts, Arkansas, Washington State, Colorado, and elsewhere In Massachusetts, polls show medical marijuana question 3 up 69%-22%. The 18th state to nullify federal marijuana laws is going to do it by a landslide. Arkansas has a similar initiative that is up slightly in the latest polls. In Colorado, Amendment 64 is taking things to the next level. they already have medical marijuana. This would legalize the “sale and personal use of marijuana” for people 21 and over. That one is up by 10 points – 50% in favor, 40% opposed. The same one in Washington State, Initiative 502 is polling at 57% in favor with only 33% opposed. If any of these states pass their marijuana measures – especially the legalization efforts – it will further the de-facto nullification of federal laws on pot that is already happening in 17 states around the country right now. JUST THE BEGINNING As Democrats and Republicans continue to work together in DC to take away our rights, it’s states, local communities and individuals which will rise up and save them. And what is our path? It’s not about federal elections, or federal candidates, or federal campaigns for liberty of any kind. Our path is resistance.. When Rosa Parks refused to move the to back of the bus

“Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil.”, Thomas Paine During my morning commute the other day, I was stopped at a traffic light. While sitting there fiddling with the radio dial, my mind wandered. At that instant, how many cars were stopped on how many highways by how many red-lights all around the country? How many gallons of gasoline were being wasted while car engines sat idle? How many minutes were being lost? How much traffic congestion was being created as groups of cars were being forcibly compressed into tightly condensed clusters? All of these must be huge numbers. Now multiply them by the number of instants in a day and the number of days in a year, this is surely a huge (and growing) waste, each and every year. Early in the morning or late at night in my area, it is not even unusual to be caught at a traffic light with no competing traffic moving in any direction through an intersection. We surrender our intelligence, our freedom, and our mobility to an automaton, thoughtlessly cycling through red, yellow, and green. Well there are many traffic lawyers however I recommend to visit kpnylaw.com/speeding-ticket/ you really should have the highest-quality legal counsel available. When you add it all up, this is an immeasurable evil perpetrated against the American people. The loss of freedom, the mindless submission, the loss of time, the loss of money as our gasoline is consumed…. Yet this evil saves lives. I am convinced that most of these traffic lights are worthless, merely moving accidents from one place to another, but at least a few of them actually do prevent accidents and traffic fatalities according to the report from a wrongful death attorney in las vegas nv. As much as I am convinced that traffic lights are evil, I am also convinced that some percentage of them are necessary. The lesser of two evils, as it were. Last Wednesday, I was picking up my daughter from Blues on the Green. The weekly music festival is so large now that we agreed to meet at the McDonald’s on the corner of Barton Springs and South Lamar. Around 9:30, I saw a young woman on an electric scooter come whizzing by. And then another. And then another. Eventually, Barton Springs was literally swarming with electric scooters. Riders of every age, shape and size. And none of them were wearing any protective equipment or even paying full attention to the traffic lights; no helmets, no knee or elbow pads, no gloves. I even saw one teenage girl wearing heels as she zoomed along. As a personal injury attorney, when I see an obviously dangerous activity taking place, I sit up and take notice. According to Atlanta personal injury attorneys at Harris Lowry Manton LLP, you only have two years from the day you were injured, or the day you could have reasonably known you were injured, to file your claim. Electric scooters have become wildly popular in South Florida. And apparently it’s not just me, E-scooters were first a novelty and then many began to find them annoying: the darting electric scooters have startled and sometimes scared South Florida pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.Electric scooters travel up to 20 miles per hour and can carry passengers, including children, who stand on the floorboard with the driver. Many people don’t have experience operating or riding on e-scooters, adding to e-scooter’s erratic zipping and zapping in traffic. Florida’s Governor DeSantis recently signed HB 453. Under this new legislation, e-scooter riders have “all rights and duties applicable to the rider of a bicycle,” including the use of streets and bike lanes. Cities and municipalities can still place some restrictions on e-scooter use, such a keeping some sidewalks and streets scooter free, and regulating where and how the scooters can be parked. In sum, HB 453 will take some e-scooter riders off sidewalks and put them on the streets with bicyclists and cars. See the potential danger here? E-scooter proponents cite the scooter’s easy and affordable availability, and the ease of taking short trips without getting into a car. They also point to reducing city traffic congestion and pollution from car emissions. But what about Florida’s pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists?Particularly in the populated areas of Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, e-scooters add to the already dangerous mix of crowded roads and never-ending construction. A South Florida Sun Sentinel review of Fort Lauderdale Fire Rescue records found that 74 scooter riders were in accidents from December 2018 through April 2019. 57 of the accidents req

When talking about the Constitution as the Founders and Ratifiers gave us, there tends to be two primary viewpoints – those that are in favor of strict limitations on federal power, and those who want those limits obliterated. Stereotypes in our society generally separate those views by political party support – or even voting habits. People who vote Democrat are generally considered the ones who look at the Founders’ vision as old, outdated, or simply something that gets in the way of their political plans. Republican voters are generally seen as the ones who want smaller government, and the ones who cite the Constitution as justification for that reduction in federal power. But, many people argue, individual Republican supporters often favor policies that are just as unconstitutional as their Democrat counterparts. They are many who have favored things like the Real ID act, the patriot act, indefinite detention, war without congressional declaration, and much more. In my own experience over the years, I’ve often noticed a difference in how these two “sides” respond to Constitutional arguments. In talking with Democrats about federal actions they oppose, they’ll readily get on board with a viewpoint that the act in question is unconstitutional. But, when they favor it politically, it takes quite a bit more. And, often times, when providing a pretty convincing argument that the act is in fact unconstitutional, the response is generally something like this – “OK, sure. It’s unconstitutional. But why do we need to be stuck in a period two centuries ago. Those old white guys couldn’t have envisioned our needs for today.” Basically, it all gets down to a political viewpoint. Use the Constitution when it supports those view, and trash it when it doesn’t. On the other hand, in talking with Republicans about federal actions they oppose, they’ll also readily get on board with a viewpoint that the act in question is unconstitutional. And when they favor the act politically, it also takes quite a bit more explanation. Where I’ve personally experienced the greatest difference in responses is when providing a convincing argument that a Republican’s favored political program is unconstitutional. I can’t think of a time where I’ve heard that the Constitutional limitation should be ignored because it’s old, or because those “dead white guys” wrote the document. Instead, I have generally heard arguments like this. “Yes, I agree that the founders left marriage rules to the states. So we should amend the Constitution and make that a national issue!” Or, “OK, now I understand the PATRIOT Act issue constitutionally, and I really shouldn’t have been in favor of it when Bush was in office. But I’m not going to vote against Obama over this one issue – we’ve got to get him out of office!” In general, I can understand these positions, even if I don’t agree with them. At very least, when nationalizing something, I’m hearing from these folks that a Constitutional mechanism should be used in some cases. And, when learning that a favored program is unconstitutional, I’m getting less resistance to it, even when actions are taken which will perpetuate it. While this isn’t a great success, it is a slight improvement. But, lately, I’ve noticed a new approach becoming popular, that’s just as bad, or worse. This viewpoint can be summed up no better than by this comment, from Paul in North Carolina: “You are ensuring the enslavement of America thanks to your ‘purism’. Face facts and realize we must oust Obama.” So let me get this straight. It’s us – the ones who want to follow the Constitution, who are the bad guys? It’s not the people who’ve given us nationalized education, nationalized health care, nationalized retirement funds, nationalized agricultural laws, and more. It’s the Constitutionalists who are now the enemy to republicans like Paul. For Paul, I guess he doesn’t care about Republicans who paved the way for Obamacare with Medicare Part D. He doesn’t care about Republicans who paved the way for “Indefinite Detention” in America by setting it up and practicing it at Guantanamo Bay. He doesn’t care about the massive growth in food stamps recipients under Obama as a result of Republicans voting in favor of expanding them under Bush. He doesn’t care about much, I guess. For Republicans like Paul – and on the other side, like the “Peace President” who bombs people, extends the patriot act, and keeps guantanamo bay open – principle means nothing. Only winning does. But, for them to say they want to “save America,” is this delusional? I think so. Every election, we hear from people that the president must be ousted or “we’re all doomed.” But yet, there’s never been a presidential election in modern times that has brought this country anywhere closer to the Constitution. Not one. Become a member and support the TAC! The sad fact is this. America, as the Founders set up, was dead and gon

As if on cue, various members of the left are getting themselves all worked up over the GOP’s new platform. ThinkProgress published a short piece, written by Ian Millhiser, warning that the “GOP platform declares that the social security benefit ‘Medicaid’ is unconstitutional.” But this really need not concern progressives, since the party platforms are nothing more than formal campaign promises, they mean nothing in reality. The platforms, for all of the drama and parliamentary bickering that goes into forming them, function only to spark fires under the party’s base. The more noteworthy portions of the platforms, such as the one about Medicaid, will no doubt be red meat for self-described fiscal conservatives and advocates for limited government. Tea Partiers will surely be happy to see such additions and may be more inclined to vote for Romney/Ryan if such language is included in the written part of the campaign. Sadly though, for anyone who takes the 10th Amendment seriously, who would prefer a return to federalism, such changes are unlikely to come from the GOP. The spirit of this limit on federal power is too often left with the trampled confetti and withering balloons after election day celebrations. If it’s not thrown out completely come inauguration day, the platform is long forgotten, wadded up with the campaign banners and leftover bumper stickers. The only chance it has to see the light of day is when some party intern pulls it from the closet four years later and gets it ready for another hollow convention. But this isn’t the only reason the progressive left needn’t worry that Mitt Romney is going end Medicaid. In the GOP’s attempt to placate the Ron Paul Republicans, it seems they drafted a rather week plank on the subject, upon closer examination. It reads in part: We support the review and examination of all federal agencies to eliminate wasteful spending, operational inefficiencies, or abuse of power to determine whether they are performing functions that are better performed by the States. […] We affirm that all legislation, rules, and regulations must conform and public servants must adhere to the U.S. Constitution, as originally intended by the Framers. […] We propose wherever feasible to leave resources where they originate: in the homes and neighborhoods of the taxpayers (emphasis added). First, any document written for the purpose of rolling back the federal government (that isn’t just a lame attempt at pandering) should do more than review and examine federal waste and abuse. Anyone paying attention knows that all federal programs are rife with waste and abuse – that’s all government programs are! Second, if a return to constitutional government is really the goal, then it should be well-understood that questions of government are to be made strictly on the letter of the law, not on which agency is better able to perform them. As it stands, the constitution gives no authority to the federal government – none at all – to provide any health services, with perhaps the care of the military as the only exception. And as for the third point, wherever feasible is the perfect clause from which to renege on the promise of conforming to the constitution. All some committee, special council, or other group has to do is conclude that it wouldn’t be feasible to relinquish state power. Given the massive bureaucracy and entrenched culture of centralized power in Washington D.C., who really expects a GOP administration to carry on with some Jeffersonian overhaul? No one grounded in reality, that’s for sure. Setting aside the GOP’s infidelity to their platform, and the semantic tricks they play, this debate is still an important one to have. We’re not going to achieve a federal rollback – or even get moving in that direction – without having this debate and winning over a substantial group to tip the balance in our favor. So, for the sake of argument, here is the case for rolling back entitlements and returning to a more decentralized approach. Millhiser is getting all hot under the collar because he’s afraid the GOP platform fits too closely with a lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act. Were this suit to overturn certain provisions of “Obamacare,” he fears it could jeopardize other federal programs, including Medicaid. If Medicaid were to be permanently repealed, argues Millhiser, then 62 million Americans would lose their health coverage. Though Millhiser doesn’t make the explicit claim here, he alludes to an argument that others on the left frequently rely on: the Affordable Care Act must be constitutional; otherwise it would follow that other federal programs, such as Medicare, would be unconstitutional as well. The question begged here is that national healthcare programs – of any stripe – are themselves in accordance with legitimately-delegated powers. Even a cursory reading of Article 1, Section 8 reveals that no such authority was delegated to the federal government, but thi

Bully. (bul-ly) Noun. A person who uses strength or power to harm, intimidate or manipulate those who are weaker. In society, people run across all kinds of bullies. There’s the traditional bully in grade school who pushes around the smaller kids. There’s the punk in high school who picks on other people to get his way. There’s the neighborhood thug or gang member who wants to control the local territory. There’s the company creep who lies and cheats his way up the company ladder, and the big corporation that intimidates others for its own gain. And then there’s the government bully. To me, the government bullies are the worst. Under the threat of violence, they tell you what kind of light bulb you can buy, what size your toilet can be, what kind of plant you can grow and consume, and what kind of tax penalty you’ll have to pay for doing absolutely nothing. They read your emails, monitor your bank accounts, fly drones everywhere imaginable, drop bombs on people around the world and claim the power to indefinitely detain you without due process. Even the worst bullies in all the other categories can’t get away with these kinds of things on such a grand scale. These politicians are nothing more than the mafia – with tax revenue to pay their expenses – which actually makes them worse. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has written a pretty good book about this kind of power. It’s appropriately named “Government bullies.” Here’s a bit from the description: Government regulations are out of control. They dictate how much water goes into your commode, and how much water comes out of your showerhead. They determine how hot the water needs to be in your washing machine, and how many miles to the gallon your car must achieve. Since the Patriot Act, your banking records, your gun registration, and your phone bill are easily accessible by government snoops. Mothers are arrested for buying raw milk. Families are fined for selling bunny rabbits without a license. Home and property owners are strapped with obscene fines, entangled in costly legal messes, and sent to federal prison, all for moving dirt from one end of their land to another. Unelected bureaucrats, armed with arbitrary rules and no need to back them up, stonewall and attack American citizens at every turn. The damage can be overwhelmingly taxing—financially, emotionally and even physically. These stories are of everyday Americans badgered and harassed by their own government—the very institution that is supposed to serve us all. This gross breach of our constitution is as frightening as it is real, and GOVERNMENT BULLIES is a call to action against it. Paul is certainly on the money with these examples. He shares with us stories of the negative results of unrestrained power – and how limits to that power are absolutely necessary. That’s why the word “hypocrite” came to mind when I was reading some press releases from the Senator recently. Here’s what’s going on… Rand Paul has been making a bit of a PR splash of late by calling for an end to foreign aid to countries like Pakistan, Egypt and Libya. I absolutely concur with this view. And not only because I consider such “aid” to be an unconstitutional expansion of federal power, but because the so-called “help” that’s been given to foreign countries over the years always seems to have strings attached. Or, it comes with a bigger price tag, blowback. Think about all the “foreign aid” that was once given to Saddam Hussein. Billions of dollars of money from US taxpayers went to his coffers. He received weapons, training, and even biological research materials that were used for Iraq’s chemical weapons program. That didn’t work out too well, did it. But then again, all those people who are getting rich and powerful off the $1-2 trillion dollars of direct and indirect Iraq war costs are probably cheering this insanity on. Anyway, back to Rand Paul. So he’s been pushing hard to supposedly eliminate foreign aid to these countries. On its face, it sure sounds like a good plan to me. But, all you need to do is read through his press releases and statements – and not just the subject lines. Here’s one, for example – from a letter he sent to members of the House: “I urge you to take immediate action to pass a much-needed bill demanding cooperation and accountability from the countries involved in the recent violence directed at our embassies and consulates. The bill should send a strong clear message to these entities: You do not get foreign aid unless you are an unwavering ally of the United States.” hmmmm. Interesting. There’s more: “If Pakistan wants to be our ally—and receive foreign aid for being one—then they should act like it, and they must start by releasing Dr. Afridi.” Dr. Afridi is the guy who provided intel to the CIA which helped find Bin Laden. He was arrested, tortured, and treated horribly by the Pakistani government. I think it’s awf

Even though millions of people want to keep Barack Obama’s Health Care “Reform” law, millions more want it gone. With the June Supreme Court ruling allowing the mandate to continue – and most everything else too – people are trying to focus on just that. “What should I do to spend my time and resources most effectively?” Over 50% of the country wants to see it repealed. Political candidates are basing their electoral success on their position on the law. And groups are holding educational rallies about what to do next. Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we’ve offered our own advice on what to do next. But we haven’t really addressed some of the other actions people are being encouraged to take. I figured this was a good time to put together a top-5 list. But, not of the best things you can do. Instead, these are the things I think you should avoid supporting most. Why? First of all, because they will fail or cause more problems down the road. And also, since virtually everyone – especially in difficult economic times – has limited time, energy, money and other resources, it’s even more important to spend those resources wisely, and effectively. With that, here’s my Top 5: How to Fail at Getting Rid of Obamacare 5. Wait for it to collapse under its own weight. Some people are under the belief that the amount that Obamacare will cost will result in a failure of the program, or some even believe it could collapse the entire economic system. So instead of taking an active role in pushing to end it, they’re spending their own time doing personal preparation. Some sit, wait, and do nothing. Others buy storable food, ammo, and other things that would be needed under such economic chaos. I believe the maxim that “things that can’t go on forever, don’t.” But there are loads of things which can’t go on forever – that seemingly do. For decades people have said that American foreign policy can’t continue on this path. It does. We’ve heard that the Fed can’t keep printing and printing…and printing. But it still does. Or that the next violation of individual liberty is going to wake enough people up to bring things to an end. But yet, Constitutional violations continue, unabated. Yes, Obamacare is certainly an economic monstrosity. But waiting for it to fail under its own weight won’t help, even when taking responsible steps for your own emergency preparation. And guess what. Tomorrow never comes. 4. Eliminate it by Executive Order. While pure presidential power isn’t an extremely common talking point for ridding us of Obamacare, I consider it pretty important to discuss. The use of executive orders has ballooned in recent years for virtually everything. Both Obama and his predecessor Bush have made a mockery of constitutional restraint with their use of executive orders. And of course, both sides of the political aisle make excuses for their president when he’s been in office. All of this is part of our never-ending path towards an executive dictatorship. Last fall, Rick Perry made a statement that if he were elected president, on day one he would issue an executive order to eliminate “as much of Obamacare as he could.” Look, there are many ways that executive action could, theoretically put enough roadblocks in the way to bring the Affordable Care Act to an end. But, to any constitution-loving person, the idea of a President “eliminating” law by executive order should be considered extremely dangerous. Here’s the big problem. If we accept the idea of one person deciding whether or not a law will stay or go, what’s to stop the next president from reversing those decisions. This would be a temporary band-aid at best. We need far fewer executive orders. Not more. 3. Go Back to the Supreme Court. Some people – primarily legal scholars and so-called experts – believe that a proper next step is to go back to court. Yeah, right. They’ll get to write more articles about it, get more attention on the legal discussion and advance the importance of their profession. But that’s about it. The fact remains. In over 200 years, the constitution-violating men and women in black dresses have overruled fewer than 200 Congressional acts. I don’t know probability stats, but I’m thinking I have a better chance of getting hit by lightning, twice in one day, than seeing the Supremes strike down this federal act. 2. Vote the Bums out Blowhards like Bill O’Reilly tell us that if “Obama goes down, so does the liberal movement in America.” This one could easily have made #1 because it’s so idiotic and ignorant. Not only would the current alternative give you much of Obamacare under a different name, but there’s virtually no reason to trust Republicans in general when it comes to eliminating the so-called “liberal movement” in this country. They have been part of it for a long time. Republicans gave us the biggest expansion of government-run healthcare in three decades when they passed Medicare Part

In September 1796, George Washington shared some words of wisdom that ring true today… “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.” — George Washington, September 19, 1796 The political convention season puts partisan politics on a pedestal for all to see. The Democrats and Republicans both host extravagantly choreographed shows designed to convince America that the other guy is the grossest person in the world, even though the two candidates differ less than 10 percent when it comes to actual policies. And it works. The majority of Americans define their political ideologies in terms of their party. Republicans swear electing Mitt Romney will “save America,” and Democrats run around claiming that unless Obama gets four more years, America will find itself thrown back into the “failed policies of last century.” It’s all a load of crap. No matter which one of these men manages to garner enough votes to enable him to call 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home for the next four years, the federal government will continue to expand, will continue to grow more intrusive and will spiral deeper into debt. Yet millions of Americans cling tenaciously to the myths spun by their respective parties. Take this brilliant comment by Terry. “People have this bad assumption about big government. I want big government if that big government is supporting and defending our founding constitution and supporting those principles that are the core of our country. Republicans have a tendency to lean toward our founding principles. Big government becomes burdensome and dangerous when in the hands of liberals who seem to consider the constitution only when it serves them to do so.” Never mind that big government is the antithesis of America’s founding principles. And never mind Terry baselessly assuming Republicans actually consider the Constitution any time other than when it serves them to do so. The very notion that “big government” serves a great purpose as long as “our guy” controls it should send shudders down any thinking American’s spine. Get the New Documentary Today! Of course, Republicans don’t hold a monopoly on blind partisan loyalty. I saw an Obama 2012 sticker on the back of some care with a peace symbol the other day. Yes – nothing says “peace” like blowing up your neighbor with a well-executed drone strike. This was the kind of mentality George Washington warned about. When we buy into the “our guy’s a saint; their guy’s a devil” thinking, we become willing to place a mantel of power on our guy so he can “get things done.” Terry and many other people get it wrong on so many levels. But their willingness to place big government power levers in the hands of his preferred party guys poses the greatest danger. Big government is dangerous and burdensome. Period. And your guy is not a saint. They are all devils. That’s why we must restrain all of them with the chains of the Consitution – Democrat and Republican alike. The post Politicians? None of them are Saints! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

For many Ron Paul supporters, the first major shock this year was Rand’s endorsement of Mitt Romney. Others felt the blow from Jesse Benton and John Tate. Still, others looked at the Campaign for Liberty’s obvious shift from liberty only to a republican advocacy group as reason for dismay. And just this last weekend at the Paul Festival, many supporters were freaked out by what people considered a Romney endorsement from Sheriff Richard Mack. One prominent activist that I hold a great deal of respect for put it this way: “Well… I guess i needed this weekend to know that i dont belong or fit in anywhere in politics, including the liberty crowd…. Final straw, finding a new way to change the world…” From charges of the good Doctor getting squeezed out of debate time, to shenanigans in the caucuses, to surprising endorsements of the opposition, to rejecting convention delegates and proposed rule changes that would have made the Republican party an even more centralized power structure than it already is – the frustration level of many of the most dedicated Ron Paul supporters is at a fevered pitch. I do agree that there’s plenty to be frustrated with, even if the concern of some might be blown out of proportion in some cases. I was moderately active in the Ron Paul meetup group #1 back in 2007, and felt that – wow, here’s a guy that even if I disagreed with him on something, he’d start and end all of his actions with the Constitution. The same couldn’t be said for a single politician – in my entire lifetime. That – in and of itself – was something worthy of support. But my dismay started early on – with the direction of “the revolution” as many were already calling it. I remember watching a short CPAC introduction speech by Jeff Frazee, head of Young Americans for Liberty – a group whose existence was tied to Ron Paul as his message. Jeff got up on stage and proudly proclaimed that “YAL was the country’s top organization of young conservatives.” Hmmmm. Wow. My gut reaction? Did this dude just change the name of the organization to Young Americans for Conservatism? To me, that’s really all I needed to hear. While I have a great deal of respect for Jeff and the work over at YAL – I don’t particularly want to be part of a movement to expand conservatism, just as much as I don’t want to be a part of a movement to expand progressivism. I just want liberty. You see, liberty isn’t about politicians, or political parties, or political ideologies either. Liberty transcends all of it. But, I digress. Ron Paul has, all along, considered himself nothing more than a messenger. “I’m an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect,” is one of his famous quotes. But long ago I had to accept the fact that this message – of the Constitution and your liberty – is unwelcome in Washington DC. And I’ve even grown beyond that understanding too. It’s not just unwelcome, there’s unbridled hostility towards it. Just ask a Ron Paul delegate to the Republican convention what it’s like to be blocked, buried and cheated at virtually every turn. That’s not a “you’re not welcome here” message – it’s a “we hate you and never want to see you again” message. So what’s a good person to do? Ron Paul has certainly stuck to his principles – through attack, ridicule, success and failure. That’s obviously one of the big reasons for Ron Paul’s dedicated support. “He’s the only one with principles,” is something I often hear. Guess again. Washington DC is overflowing with people who stick to their principles. It’s just that these people have a different set of principles. They are megalomaniacs. They’re thieves. They’re liars. They’re thugs. They’re killers. And they’ve been sticking to their principles for generations. I would argue that a person of principles – someone who wants to advance the cause of liberty..or any cause for that matter…would do a far greater service to their goals to stay as far away from Washington DC and the national political machine as possible. That’s why I’ve worked so hard for years now to be a part of a different kind of solution. A new way to change the world. As the famous philosophical question goes, If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? I like to apply that to other issues too. If the president starts another executive war and no one shows up, will there be any fighting? If Congress passes a law and no one cares or obeys, is it still a law? And if these people keep holding their imperial conventions and we all turn our backs on them – will they really even matter? Just think about that for a minute. If all the time and eff

Is the US Government the worst rights violator on earth? Well they sure don’t think so! According to mainstream media reports, one of Barack Obama’s White House spokesmen said this in response to the recent “free speech” trial in Russia: “While we understand that the group’s behavior was offensive to some, we have serious concerns about the way these young women have been treated by the Russian judicial system.” Ok, so let me get this straight. The leadership of the country with the most people in prison -anywhere on Earth other than North Korea – is lecturing another country about their judicial system? Barack Obama, who last winter signed the 2012 NDAA authorizing nothing less than government-sanctioned kidnapping, is in favor of fair trials? Maybe so, when he even allows his enemies to get a trial. In the United States, if someone did what the Russian protest musicians did, they could have been declared “terrorists,” and thrown in prison forever, without charge, without representation, without trial. So who the hell is he to lecture anyone about how a judicial system treats human beings? The Russian leadership is filled with criminals, and their judicial system is extremely corrupt. Defense lawyers were barred from calling most of the witnesses they wanted, including experts and some eyewitnesses, even as prosecutors were allowed to call witnesses who had seen the Pussy Riot performance only on video. But here in the “land of the free,” things are even worse. Barack Obama’s attorneys, in a recent court hearing on the NDAA, once again refused to assure the court that indefinite detention powers have not been used by the US government – even after Judge Forrest’s injunction against it. Is a show trial worse than no trial at all? Absolutely not. At least a show trial allows the world to see the corruption. In Barack Obama’s America the government people are so corrupt they prefer secrecy. They claim the power to take you off the street without anyone ever knowing it. Have things gotten that bad? With this recent court refusal, you’ll never know for sure. What we do know for sure is that they have no problem arresting people without trial – at all. Even though he’ll eventually get one, Bradley Manning has been incarcerated for over two years without trial. And just this week, Brandon Raub was arrested for facebook posts – and forcibly sent to a psychiatric hospital without due process or even an attorney. With tens of thousands of drones set to start monitoring Americans’ every move, the TSA violating the 4th amendment on nearly 2 million people every single day, mass ammunition purchases by even the Social Security Administration – and much more – the American government is the height of criminality. For Obama’s spokesman to lecture the Russian government is sad, sick joke. That would be like John Gotti complaining about the crimes of Al Capone. Look, I don’t trust these people. Any of them. They’re all criminals, in my opinion. But, you know what? It’s the American government which which might be the most dangerous in the world. Join Us! I don’t want them telling me what size my toilet should be or what kind of lightbulbs I can buy. I don’t want them controlling my health care, my education, my retirement, or anything else. I don’t want their taxes, or their inflation, or their funny money either. I don’t want them to try to fix the environment or car companies so incompetent that they should be out of business. I don’t want them sending guns to cartels across the border or to their so-called allies overseas either. I don’t want them invading my neighborhood and shutting down businesses for selling a plant they don’t approve of or a type of milk they don’t like. I don’t want them invading anyone at all. Instead of violating rights at home and interfering with the lives and liberty of people around the rest of the world, the American government would serve a much better purpose to follow the Constitution – and butt the hell out. Will it happen? Without a completely different way of dealing with them – never. The post Land of the Free? Absolutely Not. appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Some people seem to have the crazy idea that violations of the Constitution started just recently. And that things were pretty hunky dory up until January 2009. Charles in Texas had this to say: “If Barack Obama is elected for another term, the 10th Amendment will be obliterated.” We recently posed this question to a number of supporters – “On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate Mitt Romney on adherence to the Constitution” Janice in Georgia responded with this: “And the point is? We r getting close to nov election & must fire Obama! Get it? You better!” And finally, Mathis in South Carolina didn’t even beat around the bush, for lack of a better term, when he responded with this: “Bring Back George Bush!” Mathis, you either hate the Constitution or have no idea what it says. Until we got the current criminal in chief, Bush was quite possibly the Constitution’s greatest presidential enemy in history. Charles…are you, what…five years old? Or maybe you just woke up from some kind of time-traveling coma. I don’t know. But, to think that Washington DC has respected any limits on its power in recent years, is pure blindness. The 10th has been obliterated for decades. Janice, I don’t even know where to start with you. If Constitutional adherence is of no point to you, then Barack Obama should be just fine and dandy. And to all of you – and everyone else of this kind of viewpoint – things didn’t get bad when Obama got elected. Obama got elected because things already were bad. ALREADY THERE For decades – and decades – people in this country have turned a blind eye to violations of the Constitution. They’ve allowed politicians of their favorite political team get away with things so the other team wouldn’t win. Or, they’ve allowed new program after new program to begin – in order to fend off some great, scary emergency. The result of this has not been good. Why? Because politicians should never be trusted. When you allow politicians to break the rules given to them, or even allow them to simply bend those rules, and you allow them to do it for years without punishment – eventually you’ll end up with politicians who feel that the rules don’t apply at all. So, let me break it to you. We’ve been there for quite some time already. Look, I’m not going to get into reciting a list of Constitutional violations by every modern president – that list would be far too long for any human to read. Instead, I’m going to share with you a personal thought – who’s fault is all this? THE POLITICAL TEAMS Amongst presidential voters in this country, there are two main teams. There’s the people who claim to believe that government does a good job at improving society. This team scares people into believing that if the federal government doesn’t run your life, your world could collapse. These folks rarely spend time talking about Constitutional limits on power. Obviously. We’ll call this the Blue Team. Then there’s the people who claim to believe that massive federal power is a bad thing. This team often talks about limitations on federal power. They praise politicians who talk about the Constitution, and regularly cite the principles of the founders to back their views up. We’ll call this the Red Team. These days, the Blue Team votes for Barack Obama. Even though many people on that team are in favor of ending wars, opposed to the Patriot Act and indefinite detention, and find the escalating war on marijuana to be reprehensible – they’ll still vote for Obama. He’s on their team after all. And, the Red Team these days votes for Mitt Romney. This is the guy that’s supposed to be leading the team that’s in favor of the Constitution. But, maybe that’s not really the case. The word “constitution” barely appears on Romney’s campaign website. The only issue where he makes any reference to it is in regards to the Courts. And there, he makes this statement: “The job of the judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government and, where the Constitution does not speak, to leave the governance of the nation to elected representatives.” Skipping over powers reserved to “the states, respectively or to the people”- it sounds to me like Romney has rewritten the 10th Amendment to read something like this: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or spoken of in the Constitution, are reserved to Congress.” Both teams have grown the federal government far beyond anything authorized by the Constitution. It doesn’t matter if it was due to a defensive strategy, or actually cheering things on, or just complete and utter ignorance about what the Constitutional limitations are. The end result is the same. The Constitution – and the 10th Amendment – have been obliterated for decades. But I digress. OUR DISEASE People like Obama, and Romney – and Bush and Clinton. They’re all extremely bad. But they’re not the dise

On August 2nd, Robert Gray, the executive director of the American Open Currency Standard – that’s the company that mints our official Tenth Amendment Center 1 ounce silver medallions – gave testimony before Ron Paul’s Congressional Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy. We thought he made some extremely powerful statements – and wanted to share it with you here. The audio above was the live testimony, as shared on a recent episode of Tenther Radio – and the text version below is the full (not time-constrained) testimony prepared by Rob for the hearing. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, My name is Rob Gray and I was asked to testify today on the theory of competing currencies, and the practical challenges that make such a theory difficult or impossible to implement. For nearly 5 years now, I’ve successfully directed the American Open Currency Standard – the standard for private voluntary and complementary currencies that compete against each other, not against the US dollar. Allow me to clarify: we do not consider AOCS Approved medallions produced and traded in our private barter marketplace ‘competition’ to the US Federal Reserve Note. Because “fair competition”, as one would find in the “free market”, assumes the existence of a level playing field, the existence of a standard set of rules. Those players who wish to compete honestly do so by relying simply on the merit of the value they bring to the market. No fair challenge can be made between honest men and thieves. Let me be clear that when I say thieves: I refer to the current private central bank and the men in government who allow it to exist. This brings us to a critical point: according to your Employee Handbook, Article 1, Section 8 says: “The Congress shall have the Power …To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof…”. For anyone who has been a manager or business owner, it is not uncommon to find that you may have an employee who may choose to not do the work that is delegated to them, or even that they simply do it very badly. When such a time comes it is necessary for the manager or owner to step in and do the work themselves. I would argue that since 1913, Congress has failed to do the job with which it had been tasked. We the people are now bypassing you and are no longer waiting for you to make it right. It is far better to simply walk away from the system. We are walking away from toxic thoughts, relationships, investments and careers. We are taking the hard intellectual journey to rid ourselves of the indoctrination that keeps us in this system. We are realizing the power we have in ourselves and the everyday choices that we make to either empower some soulless collective or our own families. We are realizing that we simply need to withdraw our time, energy, and money from banks, politicians and corporations that do not serve our interests. In the time since our inception, the American Open Currency Standard has enjoyed nearly five years of growth and success in our mission of issuing a means that allows valuable exchanges among men who produce. In the next five years, we expect to expand our offerings and to increase our ability to keep up with the demand for our private currency. We are doing the job Congress would not. The use of community currencies here in the US became popular back in the early 1930’s. You see, at the time, the theory was that a group of the world’s most powerful men, many of them international bankers, were intentionally and systematically removing currency from circulation, creating an artificial scarcity of money across America. Small cities and towns felt it worse than anyone. But life did go on. Then, during the greatest economic depression this country had ever seen, individuals across this country developed their own mediums of exchange. They still needed things – food, clothing, daily essentials – they still needed to live, and they didn’t have time to wait for the government to fix the problem, and they certainly weren’t going to rely on the same bankers that caused the crash to offer solutions. And so, according to historical records, thousands of community currencies were created, circulated and traded in places where the scarcity of dollars was interfering with the human desire to live, and the market’s desire to trade. And since their elected employees were not doing the job for which they were hired, these individuals took it upon themselves to secure the means to their own survival and potential prosperity. More recently, community currencies have sprung up across Europe as the Euro and national fiat currencies become increasingly unavailable and undependable. Today, communities all across the Eurozone trade their own money instead of the Euro. Community currencies are not simply a good idea in theory; they are necessary, alive, and true examples of the fr

Get the New Documentary Today! Today, Paul Krugman decided to give us his wisdom on the subject of nullification – by saying almost nothing at all. In a short blog post, linking to a “report” by ThinkProgress, he notes – laughingly – that a Senate Candidate in Texas supports the idea of states nullifying acts of Congress. He doesn’t say a thing about nullification, but he’s obviously brushing it off as idiotic. As Tom Woods wrote on his blog today, “Paul Krugman thinks the idea of state nullification of unconstitutional laws is so self-evidently stupid that he doesn’t even need to offer an argument against it.” Digging a little deeper – just a little, mind you – you’ll see that the ThinkProgress article he linked to was referring to Ted Cruz, who had a proposal where two or more states could work together to refuse compliance with the Affordable Care Act. Not outright nullification, but we certainly know that non-compliance in large numbers can in fact nullify a federal law. ThinkProgress, the well-funded liberal blog which was vehemently anti-war while Bush was in office (now they don’t seem to think foreign policy is worth much of their time), has an interesting relationship with such nullification actions taken by the states. They turn a blind eye to them when Republicans rule in Washington. They sometimes give the image of cheering such efforts when politically popular. They attack and denigrate them when Democrats rule in Washington or when they oppose favored policies. And when they see nullification efforts getting popular among their own supporters, they simply freak out. All in all, these people, led by the crackpot pseudo-expert Ian Millhiser, are promoting an extremely dangerous view of how this country should be run. Millhiser tells us that the Supremacy Clause provides that “Acts of Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land,” and thus cannot be nullified by rogue state lawmakers.” In other words, Congress passes a law, the President signs it, and it’s a done deal. Anything and everything is somehow authorized by the Constitution. But that begs the question. If the federal government can do anything it wants, why even write a Constitution at all? Here, Millhiser makes an argument that is so silly that it’s not worth my time. On top of it, his view of the supremacy clause is totally wrong. He knows it. He’s just counting on his readers not reading the clause, like Brion Mclanahan did. STATE NONCOMPLIANCE In 2005, the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration gave us the privacy-invading, state-commandeering, constitution-violating Real ID Act. In much of the country today, while the law is still on the books in congress and has never been challenged in court – it remains null and void. Why? Because of mass state noncompliance with the act which has led to its de facto nullification. Did ThinkProgress have anything negative to say about such efforts? If they did, it sure wasn’t as prominent as their attacks on those who seek to nullify the federal health insurance mandate, or federal light bulb standards. Millhiser said that the embrace of nullification in those areas “threatens the very union itself.” Isn’t it odd, then, that we didn’t hear a peep from TP about “threats to the union” when they reported on a Democratic governor nullifying the Real ID act in 2007? Here’s all they had to say, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) said “no, nope, no way, hell no” Tuesday to helping create the first national identifcation cards, signing into law a bill that blocks the state from complying with the REAL ID Act. The articles linked in that brief report were to those supporting the nullification effort. The first was to an article from the editors of the Daily Kos, praising the Democrat for refusing to comply with the federal law. And the other to the ACLU’s Real ID website highlighting state resistance – and encouraging more widespread non-compliance. If ThinkProgress were intellectually honest, they would’ve followed that up by saying things like – “The Governor of Montana just took the wildly dangerous and unconstitutional view that his state can somehow pick and choose what federal laws they want to obey.” But they aren’t and they didn’t. Even after Barack Obama got into office, TP continued to report on state nullification of the Real ID act – without a single negative word about it. In September 2009 Andrea Nill Sanchez reported that “at least 15 states have passed legislation blocking the implementation of REAL ID.” She somehow “forgot” to mention how dangerous state nullification was that time too. In June of this year, Think Progress posted a report on how seven more states may legalize medical marijuana In 2012. With 17 states already directly defying

Since its inception, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies have led to a decline of over 95% in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. As a result, there have been several attempts to reduce or even eliminate the Federal Reserve’s powers. Louis T. McFadden led efforts in the 1930s. Wright Patman pressed again in the 1970s. Henry Gonzalez got things moving in the 1990s. And, Ron Paul has led the charge for more than twenty years now. In nearly eighty years, though, none of these efforts have succeeded. And, even with House passage of Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill earlier today, it’s highly unlikely that the imperial Senate would ever allow light to be shed on the actions of its financial backer. Resistance to these efforts is seriously entrenched. But yet, a large number of people across the political spectrum want to know what goes on behind the Fed’s curtain. And with calls to audit the federal reserve reaching a fevered pitch, it’s a good time to ask the basic question – is this even a worthy effort? Not to say that you should want a secret national bank, but rather – is this kind of activism the best place for you to put your energy…and hope? Will lobbying the Senate get Harry Reid to allow a vote? Will calling Mitch McConnell change anything? Will Barack Obama or Mitt Romney allow such a bill to pass without their veto? I believe the answer to all these questions is a big, fat NO. PULLING THE RUG OUT On the other hand, in contrast to attempts to put a stop to the Fed at the national level, a paper that William Greene presented at the Mises Institute’s “Austrian Scholars Conference” proposes an alternative approach to ending the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money. The “Constitutional Tender Act” is a bill template that can be introduced in every State legislature in the nation. Passage would return each of them to the Constitution’s “legal tender” provisions of Article I, Section 10: “No State Shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” Such a tactic would achieve the desired goal of abolishing the Federal Reserve system by attacking it from the bottom up – pulling the rug out from under it by working to make its functions irrelevant at the State and local level. Under the Constitutional Tender Act, the State would be required to use only gold and silver coins – or their equivalents, such as checks or electronic transfers – for payments of any debt owed by or to the State. This includes things like taxes, fees, contract payments, and the like. All such payments would be required to be denominated in legal tender gold and silver U.S. coins, including Gold Eagles, Silver Eagles, and pre-1965 90% silver coins. The market would then require that all State-chartered banks – as well as any other bank acting as a depository for State funds – offer accounts denominated in those types of gold and silver coins, and to keep such accounts segregated from other types of accounts such as Federal Reserve Notes. But that’s not all! Not only would the use of Federal Reserve Notes by the State be made illegal; the use of legal tender U.S. gold and silver coins would be encouraged amongst the general population too – by eliminating sanctions against its use. HOW IT PLAYS OUT Passage of the Constitutional Tender Act would introduce currency competition with Federal Reserve Notes by outlawing their use in transactions with the State. Ordinary people, being required to pay their State taxes in gold and silver coins, would find it necessary to conduct some transactions with metal – including the use of checks and debit cards based on bank accounts denominated in such coins All businesses operating within the State, being required to pay their State sales taxes and license fees in gold and silver coins, would need to do the same. Most importantly, though, in order for businesses to acquire the amount of gold and silver needed, they find it necessary to offer their goods and services in “dual currency” denominations, where customers could choose to pay in Federal Reserve Notes or gold and silver coins. This kind of “bottom up” approach to ending the Fed will have a greater likelihood of success than the “top-down” approaches we’ve seen over the years for two major reasons: 1. The top-down approach has been an utter failure. While it has succeeded greatly in an educational role, it has simply not worked tactically. 2. It’s decentralized. Political opposition won’t be as strong or well-funded on a state level. Strategies and tactics can be adapted much quicker. And, most importantly, success in one state can be a far greater educational tool – and a source of courage – for people of a neighboring state, than endless calls to a Congress which almost never does what’s right. Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion! BYE BYE Greene tells us that use of sound money would drive further use. He writes: “Over time, as

During a recent radio appearance, a caller challenged my assertion that state legislatures should nullify the federal health care act, along with a slew of other unconstitutional measures. His reasoning? The federal government might be mean to us. He came up with a litany of actions the feds might take. They could yank all of the state’s funding. That would mean no more roads or schools! They could stop paying benefits to people living in the state and create a rebellion of dependent people. They could virtually quarantine and isolate the state until it complies. Heck, they could even roll tanks into the streets! OK, he didn’t include the tanks, but I honestly think that was in the back of his mind. The caller was clearly in awe and scared to death of the federal government. He wasn’t about to risk its wrath for something as trivial as stopping them from cramming a one-size-fits-all health care system down 300 million American throats. At the time, I tried to convince the caller that the feds wouldn’t dare retaliate in that manner. It would prove politically suicidal. I argued the feds would likely back down, especially if a bunch of states nullified. That was, after all, Madison’s viewpoint. 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. But when I thought about it later, I had to concede the caller had a point. The feds might well retaliate. They could certainly yank funding. They could conceivably tell the “rebellious” states they weren’t providing any more federal assistance. Heck, if things got really crazy, the feds could even roll in federal agents, arrest state legislators and declare martial law. Would they? Probably not. Could they? Certainly. On paper, the federal government could crush any state, or even a number of states united in opposition. It is big, powerful and overbearing. So was England in 1776. In fact, England arguably stood as the most powerful nation on the planet at the time. It was said “the sun never sets on the British Empire.” Her navy ruled the seas. Her army could turn vast fields into a sea of red. She wielded enormous economic power. And she held the colonies tightly under her thumb. But that didn’t stop the Americans from looking the British square in the eye and declaring, “We will live as free and independent people!” The colonists valued liberty more than security, especially a false security under a despotic and tyrannical ruler who refused to respect any limits on his own power. I’m certain more than one hand trembled as it gripped a quill pen and inked a name on the Declaration of Independence. Those men must have felt the icy fingers of fear as they boldly pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. And this guy is afraid the feds might yank some funding. Wow. At some point, you must face down a bully. You can only let him take your lunch money for so long. If you continue to allow him to dominate you, he will take more and more and more. At some point, you’ve got to punch him in the nose. Yeah, he might punch you back. You know what? Then it’s on. Get the New Documentary Today! The U.S. federal government thinks its power unlimited. The feds believe they can control any and every aspect of your life. If they can’t directly control it, they will tax you into submission. The general government has no respect for its constitutional boundaries and mocks the states that created it – the states it was meant to serve, not lord over. The Supreme Court decision legitimizing the insurance mandate… I mean penalty – err, tax – should prove to everybody once and for all that the feds will never limit the power of the feds. Washington D.C. won’t fix the problem that is Washington D.C. The states must stand up and do their duty. They must interpose to halt the progress of evil. Nullification IS the rightful remedy. Not a rebellion, but a legitimate check on federal power. We simply cannot live in fear. If we do, we will live in chains. On Aug. 1, 1776, Samuel Adams delivered a speech at the State House in Philadelphia. He offered a message for those who would shrink in fear. “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you

by Harry Browne, Originally written July 2003 Unfortunately, July 4th has become a day of deceit. On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress formally declared its independence from Great Britain. Thirteen years later, after a difficult war to secure that independence, the new country was open for business. It was truly unique – the first nation in all of history in which the individual was considered more important than the government, and the government was tied down by a written Constitution. It was the one nation where you could live your life secure in the knowledge that no one would ask for your papers, where you weren’t identified by a number, and where the government wouldn’t extort a percentage of your income as the price of holding a job. And so each year July 4th has been a commemoration of the freest country in history. False Celebration But the America that’s celebrated no longer exists. The holiday oratory deceitfully describes America as though it were the unique land of liberty that once was. Politicians thank the Almighty for conferring the blessings of liberty on a country that no longer enjoys those blessings. The original freedom and security have disappeared, even though the oratory lingers on. What made America unique is now gone, and we are much the same as Germany, France, England, or Spain, with: confiscatory taxes, a Constitution and Bill of Rights that are symbolic only – merely documents used to justify governmental actions that are in fact prohibited by those documents, business regulated by the state in the most minute detail, no limits on what Congress or the President might decide to do. Yes, there are some freedoms left, but nothing like the America that was and nothing that you can’t find in a few dozen other countries. The Empire Gone, too, is the sense of peace and security that once reigned throughout the land. America, bound by two huge oceans and two friendly neighbors – was subject to none of the never-ending wars and destruction that plagued Europe and Asia. Now, however, everyone’s business is America’s business. Our Presidents consider themselves the rulers of the world – deciding who may govern any country on earth and sending Americans to die enforcing those decisions. Whereas America was once an inspiration to the entire world – its very existence was proof that peace and liberty really were possible – Americans now live in fear of the rest of the world and the rest of the world lives in fear of America. The Future Because the education of our children was turned over to government in the 19th century, generations of Americans have been taught that freedom means taxes, regulations, civic duty, and responsibility for the whole world. They have no conception of the better life that could exist in a society in which government doesn’t manage health care, education, welfare, and business – and in which individuals are free to plot their own destinies. Human beings are born with the desire to make their own decisions and control their own lives. But in most countries government and social pressures work to teach people to expect very little autonomy. Fortunately, in America a remnant has kept alive the ideas of liberty, peace, and self-respect – passing the concepts on from generation to generation. And so today millions of Americans know that the present system isn’t the right system – that human beings aren’t born to serve the state and police the world. Millions more would be receptive upon being shown that it’s possible to have better lives than what they’re living now. Both groups need encouragement to quit supporting those who are taking freedom away from them. Become a member and support the TAC! You and I may not have the money and influence to change America by ourselves, but we can keep spreading the word – describing a better society in which individuals are truly free and government is in chains (instead of the opposite). And someday we may reach the people who do have the money and influence to persuade tens of millions of Americans to change our country for the better. I don’t know that it’s going to happen, but I do know it’s possible. I know that the urge to live one’s own life is as basic in human beings as the will to live and the desire to procreate. If we keep plugging away, we may eventually tap into that urge and rally the forces necessary to restore the real America. And then the 4th of July will be worth celebrating again. 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 Uncelebrating the Fourth of July appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

I see an interesting trend. This week, two state laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court – Montana and Arizona – while the Affordable Care Act ruling due tomorrow could do the same. Or, maybe it won’t. But does it really matter in the long run? We’ll get back to that question in a bit. THE SUPREMES LOVE THE FEDS But first, the so-called states’ rights supreme court. One of the rallying cries we’ve heard in recent years has gone something like this: “The Supreme Court is getting filled with people who believe in old Constitutionalism – that most of the “progress” since the new deal violates constitutional limits, and must be overturned.” But, if there’s one thing we actually learned from this week’s Supreme Court decisions so far, it’s that the court takes the opposite view – that the maintenance of federal power over the states is the primary goal. Keeping the status quo – where federal law is always considered supreme – takes precedence over Constitutional originalism, and possibly even personal political views. In the campaign finance case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Citizens United decision trumped state laws – like Montana’s – putting restrictions on corporate money in political races. It decided that individual states don’t have the ability to craft their own campaign-finance laws that contradict Citizens United, even – it appears – if those laws are for state and not federal races In the ruling on the Arizona immigration case — which struck down three parts of that state law, but kind of upheld the “show me your papers” provision – the court maintained that states couldn’t make their own decisions on federal policy – even when simply attempting to enforce established federal law. “The national government has significant power to regulate immigration,” Justice Kennedy said for the majority. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.” The view of the court? States better not “undermine federal law.” Whatever that means. And that’s not all. On top of these two rulings, yesterday a federal appeals court ruled against Michigan, Texas and twelve other states – who sued to block new EPA rules which they felt infringed on their own retained powers under the Constitution. The result? Guess what. The challenging states lost. And, the decision virtually ensures that new emissions regulations will happen, even if Congress does nothing. According to the federal court system, even unconstitutional agencies that shouldn’t exist have power over the states. PARTISAN HACKERY? In the Montana case, the liberal court members were in favor of states’ rights – and dissented on the idea that a state was prohibited from enacting its own campaign finance laws, a liberal centerpiece. The conservative court members – well, they seem to love the idea of states rights when it comes to immigration policy, but not on campaign finance. They voted against Montana – in unison. Over the years, liberal judges have been huge advocates for applying the First Amendment to the individual states, even though its wording specifically applies only to “Congress.” Now, they seem to want it the other way around – because such precedent doesn’t fit their political views. Conservatives, until a little more recently, opposed this view. But have aggressively adopted it in recent years when politically advantageous. This partisan-based ruling style will certainly come back to bite them in the future, too. In Arizona, it was pretty much the opposite. Even Scalia, who wrote a scathing dissent – made his support of federal supremacy clear. He wrote – “Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty – not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.” For Scalia and Kennedy – and the rest – as long as you stay in “complete compliance” and don’t do anything to “undermine” federal law – you’re OK. But, with thousands of federal laws, and laws that are hundreds of pages, such a view puts us all in an untenable and dangerous place. CAUSING CENTRALIZED POWER By once again rejecting the idea that the people can and should make their own decisions on most matters on a state-by-state basis, the Court continues to set the stage for more and more centralized power. And more conflict and disappointment for everyone. By their rulings, they’re teaching individual activists to spend all their time on a federal level. The message to conservatives in the Arizona case? Immigration reform should start and end at the federal level. While it might not preclude states from trying to pass some immigration laws that aren’t explicitly proscribed – it certainly encourages them to focus most their energy trying to force their view on the entire cou

In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson found himself in a position to nearly double the size of U.S. territory. He also sought to avoid future conflicts with France over Mississippi River navigation rights. But, the Louisiana Purchase gave the staunch advocate for a strict reading of federal power a pretty hefty dilemma. He was well aware that the Constitution delegated the general government no authority to take such action. In fact, in a letter that year to John Breckinridge – the man who sponsored his 1798 Kentucky Resolutions rejecting unconstitutional federal powers – he referred to the purchase as “beyond the Constitution.” In order to remain true to his principles, the states would need to ratify a constitutional amendment delegating to the federal government the power to make the purchase. But the clock was ticking and the deal would likely fall apart in the time necessary to complete the amendment process. And, his cabinet insisted an amendment was unnecessary anyway. So what did Jefferson do? He did what every good politician eventually does. He abandoned principle to pragmatism and plunked down $15 million for the 827,000 square miles of land. You have to give the third president credit for at least coming up with a colorful rationalization. In that same letter to Breckinridge, he wrote: “It is the case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory; and saying to him when of age, I did this for your good.” Jefferson’s obfuscation shouldn’t surprise any of us. Compromise and flip-flopping go with politics like peanut butter goes with jelly. It just goes to show; even those personalities we hold out as the most principled – the so-called great ones – sometimes disappoint us. How should we handle this kind of disappointment? Forever write off the offender as a traitor to the cause? Ignore the foible and continue to prop him up on his pedestal? Tear him down or make excuses for him? Or is there an altogether better way to approach things? Disappointment washed across the liberty movement like a tsunami over the last few weeks. For two years, thousands of freedom lovers poured their hearts and souls into a presidential campaign, only to see it stumble far short of the finish line. Another personality engaged in political maneuvering that some in the liberty movement found shrewd and pragmatic. Others expressed their disgust with all kinds of vicious condemnations. The events of the last several weeks left many liberty lovers sounding confused, hopeless and defeated. This brings up important questions: why do we invest so much time and energy into personalities when history teaches us that disappointment is a virtual certainty? After all, isn’t the liberty movement about a set of principles – and not about a person’s name? Granted, we need leaders to advance our ideas. And when politicians pass good legislation, which is rare, is certainly does help too. But when the personalities become the focus of the movement, we set ourselves up for failure. People will always disappoint us at some point. They will make mistakes. They will abandon principles for one reason or another. And ultimately, they will fade away. We simply cannot afford to place all of our hopes on a single man or woman ascending to the White House throne, no matter how great that person may appear. Electing a handful of “good ones” to Congress won’t guarantee victory for the cause either. Even the “good ones” can prove not so good when elevated to positions of power. So, instead of rallying around a cult of personality, I suggest we continue to build our movement on a set of unchanging principles. At the Tenth Amendment Center, we intentionally avoid getting all wrapped up in the players on the field – especially on a national level. Instead, we tirelessly focus our attention and efforts on advancing one agenda: follow the Constitution. Every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses. Of course, we praise politicians and leaders when they support our cause and put our principles into action. We quote them when they get it right. We publish their articles when they articulate them well. But we call them out just as quickly when they fail to uphold our ideals. For us here at the TAC, people serve a purpose as players on the board, but not as the objective of the game. Leaders, politicians and personalities have a purpose, but they are never the purpose. Our focus on principle means we don’t align ourselves exclusively with any particular political movement or their various leaders. We don’t claim the mantle of Republican or Democrat. We aren’t Tea Partiers or Occupiers. We don’t call ourselves liberals or conservatives. And we don’t cast our lot exclusively with libertarians either. We simply want to live free. So, we build coalitions where we see opportunities to advance the principles of constitutionally limited government and the decentralization of power. Sometimes w

Agents from the DEA raid marijuana dispensaries around Southern California more and more these days. And the Obama administration shows no indication that it plans on letting up, either. But people in California – and around the country too – are saying, “enough is enough!” The issue is medical. It’s moral. And it’s constitutional too. On the latter, one could simply look to the Tenth Amendment. This is the one which says that the federal government is only authorized to do a limited number of things, and everything else is left to the states or the people as the people of each state determine. What? Yup, it’s pretty simple. For example, if you grow some strawberries in your backyard and eat them in your house, those berries would be outside the purview of federal power. It would also mean that if Sacramento authorized your neighbor to run a for-profit strawberry business which raised the plants here in California and sold them in your neighborhood, this business would be off-limits to the feds too. SMASHING STEREOTYPES When thinking of a marijuana advocate, do you normally get the vision of a blue blazer-wearing republican? Well neither do I. And when thinking of your standard constitution-waving Tenther, pushing for states rights and less federal power, do you normally get the vision of a young progressive? Of course not. The idea seems kinda weird. But, it’s true. And it’s not just us kooky Californians either. Americans everywhere are breaking the stereotypes that the heartland holds dear. And when it comes to weed, you can throw those stereotypes out. STATES VS FEDS A new national poll has discovered the Tenther in all of us. Americans, by a huge margin, support states’ rights and decentralized decision-making. Well, at least on one issue they do. In a recent survey of likely voters, Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found 74% – yes, that’s nearly three-fourths of the country – believe that President Obama should respect laws in states where growing and selling marijuana is legal for medical purposes. Only 15% of those polled want to enforce federal law, under which medical marijuana use is illegal. Ok, so maybe this was just a survey of likely democratic voters, right? Nope. The respondents were approximately one-third each – democrat, republican and independent. Every age and every demographic showed overwhelming support for the Tenther ideology – that the people of the states have the right to be left alone. More than two-thirds of republicans support the idea, and three-quarters of democrats do too. Men and women equally favor leaving the decision to the states. And, while people under 34 years old were even more supportive – 81% in favor – even older Americans act like Tenthers from time to time too – 64% of those aged 65 and up want the feds to butt out. It’s got to be a fluke – just one errant poll result, right? Wrong. Days later, Rasmussen Reports released another national poll on marijuana. Voters were asked this question, “Suppose the Food and Drug Administration denies approval for a particular drug. If a state government believes the drug has benefits in some circumstances, should the state be able to approve the sale of that drug in that state?” That’s a pretty radical view, one might think, with a state government not just opposing a federal mandate, but actually facilitating mass defiance to it too. Barely more than one-third of Americans – 35% – opposed such a position. WE’RE ALL TENTHERS NOW? If “radical” tends to imply a minority or fringe view, it appears to me that those who want federal control over marijuana hold a far more fringe view than those of us who want to leave it to the people of each state to determine – the Tenther view. The real question, though, is this: Like Obama on gay marriage or Romney on health mandates, will the American people prove to be selective Tenthers – advocating decentralization only when it benefits them politically? Become a member and support the TAC! I don’t think so. In time, I have a feeling most of us will learn the value and benefit of making the difficult decisions close to home rather than having them made for us thousands of miles away. For me, I certainly trust my neighbors, even the annoying ones, far more than I’ll ever trust those bought-off politicians in Washington D.C. NOTE: The preceding was recorded live at the close of Tenther Radio: Episode 51 on June 13, 2012. TRX: Tenther Radio is broadcast every Wednesday evening at 9pm Eastern and 6pm Pacific. Host Michael Boldin, along with rotating guest hosts Jason Rink, Lesley Swann, Nick Hankoff and others talk with top experts, newsmakers, and tenther activists every week. Call the show with questions or comments at 213.785.7848 and stream the broadcast LIVE at radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com The post America: Land of the Tenthers? appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

One late Saturday night, a pragmatist and an idealist walk into a bar. Both order pints of Guinness. Two fruit flies simultaneously plunge into the frothy heads of each beer. The idealist glowers, curses and empties the contents of his glass on a nearby potted plant. The pragmatist, surveying his friend’s unhappiness, flicks the fruit fly out of the beer and drains the glass with a few hearty gulps. The idealist, returning to the bar with his empty glass, asks “Why the devil didn’t you get a new one?” The pragmatist smiles and points to the clock above the bar, “Last call was five minutes ago. Taps are closed until Monday.” In 2010 ordinary American citizens, much alarmed at a big lurch towards statism, gave face and name to the Tea Party. Typical of midterm elections, the president’s party took a drubbing, but this one made exceptional by the open allegiance of the newly elected to Tea Party precepts of constitutionally limited government. Among the remarkable victories was Scott Brown, the first Republican elected by Bay Staters to the United States Senate since 1972, filling a seat vacated by the death of liberal icon Teddy Kennedy. Now, two years later, we are reacquainted with Senator Brown through his re-election bid against Democrat Elizabeth “Fauxcohontas” Warren and have taken notice to flaws in the former’s voting record. As it turns out, Scottie is a moderate. His Club for Growth score is a median hugging 49%. Certainly a better power ranking than the 10% earned by that state’s senior senator, John Kerry, but not one that will win him an honorary tricorn hat. What gives? Did the Council on Foreign Relations offer him eternal political life in exchange for a solemn vow against excessive Tentherism? Is the Tea Party dead and Scott Brown its pallbearer? The answer should be obvious. At one time Massachusetts was known as the Cradle of Liberty. Now it’s the Wet Nurse of Nanny-Statism. It’s worth noting that the Massachusetts Senate rebuked the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 with a 32-1 vote. Indeed, little has changed. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky would have a better chance of succeeding Tom Brady as quarterback of the New England Patriots than getting elected to federal office in the Massachusetts. That Scott Brown’s CFG ranking is ten times more libertarian than his predecessor might not get him on the cover of Tea Party Today, but should be cause for reasonable optimism. Become a member and support the TAC! The pragmatic recognize that electoral victories are merely a symptom of voter frustration, and a century of progressive assaults on our Constitution will not be reversed by a few elections. Our mission, first and foremost, shall be to spread the gospel of liberty and localism. In the long run, education more so than elections will prevent a Hunger Games-style dystopia. Constitutional literacy will save our country; Scott Brown, moderate Republican, will not. Yes, elections still do matter. A lot. And flies will occasionally land in our beer. But I, for one, rather share a beer with a fly than have none at all. The post Tea Partier with Training Wheels: Senator Scott Brown appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

In America, we no longer have the rule of law. It has been replaced by the “rule of five politically-connected lawyers who hold lifetime appointments.” This is just what Thomas Jefferson feared when he wrote this: “the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary: an irresponsible body, working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” – Letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821 According to the Founders’ Constitution, the Judiciary – or more precisely, the Supreme Court – was never meant to be what it has become. Actually, let me rephrase that – into what the Supreme Court has made of itself. Instead of acting as a “Supreme Court,” it now acts as “Supreme Law Giver.” There were rumblings from the very beginning that this could happen, and it did not take long for the slow creep of expanding powers to eat away at the very fabric of the Constitution. Early Court rulings, in the philosophy centralized power lover Alexander Hamilton, gave the courts powers never approved by the Founders and Ratifiers. Five lawyers would now decide our fate and make law from the bench. Constitution be damned. That power still hangs over us like a black cloud today. Following in this new tradition, 19th Century Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story became one the most nationalist judges in our early history. He worked to further the supremacy of centralized government. He pushed Hamilton’s ideas of so-called “implied” and “resultant” powers in the Constitution, and expanded the power of the executive and federal judiciary even further. It is widely recognized that there is gaping hole in the legal system in terms of public funding (legal aid). Those who could previously obtain legal aid to pay for advice regarding their divorce or disputes regarding child arrangements may no longer meet the qualifying criteria for legal aid. If they cannot afford legal advice, a person can be left feeling that they do not know where to turn, and for cases of accidents or injuries when driving or riding a motorcycle, getting the best motorcycle accidents lawyer could be essential to solve these cases. Woodrow Wilson understood what had happened over the years and stated, “The War between the States established … this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers.” And so it did. In the 1960s, Clinton Rossiter wrote something that haunts us to this day. He said, “The formula for congressional authority today reads: the commerce power + the war powers + the power to tax and spend for the general welfare x the loosest possible reading of the words ‘necessary and proper.’” Under this formula, virtually nothing that is perceived to be of importance is beyond the control of the federal government. The fact of the matter is that this was brought on by the tacit approval and promotion of the Supreme Court and their willing accomplices in Congress and the Executive Branch. Once the Court established the precedent that they, and only they, could decide on what was constitutional, the stage was set for the expansion of the centralized government we have today. Unchallenged precedent by the Supreme Court is the genesis of the growth of judicial tyranny in our everyday lives. They have become like “gods” that all must bow down before and seek their blessing to exercise any semblance of liberty and freedom. Become a member and support the TAC! There are no more “checks and balances” in the federal government. Today, the final authority as to what the Constitution says or doesn’t say, and what the other two branches are allowed to get away with, is decided by five unaccountable, politically-connected lawyers – something the Founders would never have agreed too. Then again, if you like how things have turned out, go ahead and kowtow before the Supreme Court. Beg them to decide in your favor on anything you might think is unconstitutional. But don’t be surprised when they say, “step away from the bench serf. We will decide what is Constitutional, not you.” As for me, I will take up the cause of the 10th Amendment. And with that, State Sovereignty and the right and the duty of people of the states to nullify and interpose against the federal government, but one thing is for sure and that is that you really need to be careful when looking for a motorcycle accidents lawyer and choosing one, because the quality of an attorney you ch

Last week the Heritage Foundation hosted a speech delivered by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, entitled “Why Conservatives Should Fund and Support a Strong National Defense.” The event was the annual Jesse Helms Lecture, designed “to highlight America’s founding principles.” It was given as part of the Heritage Foundation’s Protect America Month. The intent here is not necessarily to give a word by word rebuttal of the Heritage report and Kyl’s speech, but instead – to address the overarching themes of his speech. The Heritage report is prefaced with an abstract, featuring Thomas Jefferson’s declaration that “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance…” This idea, misapplied, forms the foundation of Kyl’s thesis, as vigilance, much like the word defense, is stretched to mean overseas intervention and military budgets of grotesque proportions. A quick note on terminology is important here. Kyl states early in his talk that “liberals and progressives have never been supportive of the imperative to preserve American sovereignty…” While the term sovereignty is sometimes used in a foreign policy context to denote independence, Kyl seems to use it as a synonym for the word security. He goes on to list three ways in which American “sovereignty” is put at risk, and each relates not to independence from international governmental organizations, but to issues commonly related to national security. They are: cuts to so-called defense, opposition to foreign intervention, and privacy concerns (he didn’t give details on this last item, citing too little time). Before moving into Kyl’s full argument, it is important to point out the false dichotomy he presents for the audience. There is no fundamental difference in the foreign policy ideologies of conservative and progressive politicians, as judged by their actions. Practically speaking, the Obama foreign policy is the same as Bush’s, which is the same as Clinton’s, which is just like that of Bush before him, and so on. To be sure, progressive politicians often speak in more humble terms, but their actions – escalating drone strikes, tripling troop levels in Afghanistan, ignoring due process, and launching new wars – belie this rhetoric. In his lecture, Kyl does not aim his criticism at liberals, but instead directs it at other Republicans. He warns of a “creeping sentiment within certain Republican circles that America is indeed in a period of decline, mostly due to runaway spending, and that we cannot, therefore, afford the kind of military we had in the past and should disengage from many areas of the world.” This is to say that these Republicans are beginning to reject the neoconservative dogma that has dominated U.S. policy for decades. Kyl laments this – but it’s a good thing. Intervention is not conservative and it is not consistent with “America’s founding principles,” nor is intervention conducive to a “strong national defense,” in its true sense. For the United States, the 20th Century marked the rise of foreign intervention, and it was ushered in by progressives, notably Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, neither of whom was very conservative. Consider also that Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson – all progressives – were proponents of foreign military involvement. By and large, the foreign policy of the U.S. during its first century was far more humble, mirroring the advice from the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Foreign entanglements, of the kind Kyl advocates, degrade the actual defense of the country in three ways. With troops stationed all over the planet they are more vulnerable to attack and, cannot adequately defend the U.S. The bombing of naval ships and foreign barracks provide examples of the former; and the fact that the U.S. military was better prepared to defend South Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Germany on 9/11 explains the latter. But the last, and most fundamental reason of all, is that intervention begets intervention by way of blowback. When the U.S. intervenes in the affairs of another country it necessarily creates enemies by choosing sides and killing civilians – even accidentally. Thus begins a cycle where the victims’ resentment builds, they retaliate, are attacked again, and still more seeds of blowback are sewn. This is to say nothing of the economic price tag for what amounts to an empire. Kyl brings up the perennial argument over entitlements versus military spending, and suggests that cutting “defense” spending to accommodate entitlement funding would be “devastating to national security.” Reducing defense spending would likely be detrimental to security, but so much of the pentagon’s budget is dedicated not to actual defense, but instead is offensive in nature. Not a single one of the many wars now being fought is truly defensive, nor do the inhabitants of the targeted countries pose any credible threat to the U.S. mainland. Kyl admits that “the fastes

Recently, as state and local governments have been passing legislation requiring non-compliance with the kidnapping provisions of the 2012 NDAA, a number of people who oppose NDAA have begun to attack these efforts to resist it – as little more than a sham. Vince Brown, for example, gets the ball rolling with this: “I don’t find the appeal here, isn’t all it says is that they will simply just sit back and watch the feds do what they want?” Brian Ryman goes a little deeper: “While the state of Virginia has passed what many feel to be the first significant blow against the NDAA , I have a few reservations about what is purported by some to be a victory. My main concern is that the bill has no provisions for Virginia state agencies to interpose themselves between the federal authorities and its citizens. This should be the focus of the legislation….” The implication here is that unless there’s a state law passed requiring conflict – a state agency standoff vs a federal agency – which is dangerous indeed – then somehow there’s little to no value. But is that really the case? Of course not. More later. Tom Rankin takes it a step further, insisting that anything but physical pushback on the feds is not only worthless, but some kind of a political trick. Here’s what he had to say: “Just how does this stop the Feds from enforcing NDAA. All it says is you can enforce NDAA in my state but I will not help you. This is pure bull. It is just feel good legislation that gets the public off the politicians ass. I am very disappointed in The Tenth Amendment Center and question it’s motives.” Interesting. I’ve often heard that converts to a new religion are commonly known to be more zealous than people raised in those same beliefs. I guess here at the TAC we’re finding the same thing in our own movement – for nullification. The problem, though, is this – these people, while probably quite well-intentioned, are either being misdirected, or are just misinformed about the big picture. NON-COMPLIANCE IS A BIG DEAL To clarify, we should first define the word nullification. It is “any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null, void, or unenforceable in a specific area.” Thomas Jefferson referred to nullification as the “moderate middle ground” – the effective path that lies between violent and bloody revolution on one hand and unlimited submission on the other. With that in mind, we can recognize that 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. It 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 needed, and is almost never effective. 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. When Virginia’s HB1160 was being debated, Delegate Bob Marshall gave a perspective on the importance of non-compliance when he said: “During World War II, the federal government incarcerated tens of thousands of loyal Japanese Americans in the name of national security. By this bill, Virginia declares that it will not participate in similar modern-day 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 without the help of the local sheriff or police departments. Refusing compliance is a big deal – and it will set the stage for others to do the same. WWRPD? When Rosa Parks refused to move the to back of the bus – she taught us just how to deal with laws that are unconstitutional – immoral – and unjust. On one end of the spectrum, she didn’t call for her local friends to interpose on her behalf, using force and guns to arrest the progress of evil being waged against her. And, on the other end of the spectrum, she didn’t accept the notion of unlimited submission either. Before refusing to comply, Rosa Parks didn’t first pass a law to physically stop people from violating her rights. She didn’t need to arrest an offending federal or state agent to move her cause forward. Rosa Parks also didn’t put the fate of her liberty in the hands of the political system. She didn’t simply comply and spend a bunch of time knocking on doors advocating for a new candidate for office. She didn&#8217

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. STATE RESISTANCE In response, Northern States intensified efforts to pass what were known as “personal liberty laws.” These had already been growing over time in response to the original Fugitive Slave Act years earlier. Vermont passed a “Habeas Corpus Law,” requiring state judicial and law enforcement officials to actually help captured fugitive slaves there. Massachusetts took a really strong stand – and passed a law that provided for kidnapping charges to anyone trying to use these “indefinite detention” provisions of the fugitive slave act. No federal agent was charged with kidnapping in Massachusetts, though. But, this was only because no escapee was ever captured for return after the law was passed. The state response was working. In fact, Northern states were so successful overall that when South Carolina seceded ten years later the people there named this as one of their primary reasons for leaving the Union. From their publicly-released “Declaration of Causes,” was this: “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 [Fugitive Slave Acts] or render useless any attempt to execute them…” NDAA: THE ROAD BACKWARDS In 1942, FDR signed an executive order which authorized the creation of military zones “from which any or all persons may be excluded.” This led to the roundup of around 110,000 Japanese-Americans and Japanese citizens living here in California and along the West Coast. Without due process to assist them, these people were relocated and sent to internment camps. Many more were classified as “enemy aliens” and subjected to increased restrictions. Like the Fugitive Slave Acts and Japanese mass internment, the federal government has again taken new powers never intended under the Constitution. Under sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, the feds again claim the power to classify people in such a way that they no longer have rights. President Obama and Congress have dropped the terms “fugitive slave” and “enemy alien.” Instead, they use “suspected terrorist” as a way to eliminate due process these days. RESISTANCE TODAY Today, in the spirit of the 19th century Personal Liberty Laws, states and local communities around the country are taking action against NDAA detention powers. Virginia recently became the first state in the country to pass a law refusing compliance with or assistance to federal agents carrying out detentions without due process against citizens of that state. Arizona’s legislature just passed a similar bill. And a number of other states are working on the same. But, it’s not just states. More than ten local communities are on board too. For example, up north in Fairfax, CA, they passed legislation which says that they will: “Instruct all our Town of Fairfax agencies to decline requests by federal agencies acting under detention powers granted by the NDAA that could infringe upon residents’ freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, or rights to counsel.” Become a member and support the TAC! JUST THE BEGINNING When Northern States protected habeas corpus against federal encroachments in the 19th century, they were doing their duty to protect liberty and the Constitution. Today, states and local communities are doing the same. They can and should serve as a powerful check on federal power. In fact, the framers counted on it. It’s all about local actions. As Democrats and Republicans continue to work together in DC to take away our rights, it’s our local communities who must and will rise up to save them. The post An Effective Method to Restore Due Process appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

“Mongering fear…” That’s what establishment hawks Charles Stimson and David Rivkin say the Tenth Amendment Center and other organizations are doing by pushing back against the new “indefinite detention” powers in Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. But, even in the face of yet another unconstitutional federal act, the People of the United States just gained an important ally in defense of their Constitution: the Commonwealth of Virginia, and state employees in particular. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell just signed into law House Bill 1160 (HB1160), which would prohibit state agencies from participating in unconstitutional detentions under the NDAA. Stimson and Rivkin are mighty upset about this too. Their recent Washington Post op-ed on the issue is so filled with errors, distortions and half-truths (I’m being generous with the latter), that their irritation about the bill either clouded their ability to read, or shows they’re little more than propagandists for yet more unlimited executive power. BIG FLAWS I’m going to focus on two big flaws in their analysis which seriously damage their credibility on the issue. First, there’s this: “Virginia’s legislature recently passed a bill that forbids state employees, including police and members of the National Guard, from participating in the investigation, surveillance, detention or arrest of any suspected member of al-Qaeda or its affiliates, if that suspect is a U.S. citizen.” Wrong. HB1160 does not, as the authors claim, forbid state agency participation of “any suspected member….if that suspect is a U.S. citizen.” To make such a statement would require a reader of the bill to completely miss the extremely important qualifier, which reads as follows: ….if such aid would knowingly place [applicable state agents] in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, any provision of the Code of Virginia, any act of the General Assembly, or any regulation of the Virginia Administrative Code… Think about that. Assistance in investigation, surveillance, detention or arrest is still permitted, as long as such assistance complies with the Constitution of the United States. Knowingly violating the Constitution is what is prohibited. Are Stimson and Rivkin in favor of requiring people to “knowingly” violate the Constitution? Are they just too busy to read the full text of a one-page bill? Or, are they intentionally leaving off this important qualifier from the bill itself in order to frighten you into thinking that states like Virginia (and soon others too) are dangerous? If it’s the latter, that’s a textbook case of fear mongering in my opinion. Next on the chopping block is this: …Although the federal government has no inherent constitutional right to compel state officials to help in combating al-Qaeda, since 9/11 it has funneled billions of dollars to all states that require fulsome cooperation from state law enforcement authorities. Meanwhile, state National Guard forces, when deployed overseas, are subject to federal control. For these reasons, Virginia’s legislation violates the federal law…. Both are wrong, but the big fallacy here is the latter. It’s so distorted that it bears repeating: Meanwhile, state National Guard forces, when deployed overseas, are subject to federal control. Are they claiming that HB1160 is trying to prevent Virginia’s National Guard forces from acting when under federal control? Seems so. But this is totally misleading. If I could get into the minds of the authors, I’d suspect I’d see a little fear mongering as their motivation, but who am I to say? Anyway, here’s the real deal, from the text of the actual bill. The people that HB1160 applies to are a person of specific state agencies… …or member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty When national guard troops have been called up by the federal government, they are no longer on “official state duty,” they are on official federal duty. So, of course they’d no longer be under the purview of HB1160. This language was included for just that reason. Become a member and support the TAC! Did our two authors just miss that part of the sentence, or did they intentionally ignore it? Either way, this is elementary stuff, and these two have some reading to do. NOT RELIABLE On the NDAA itself, I do recognize that Stimson and Rivkin made a number of statements about its supposed constitutionality. But, my opinion is this: If they can’t even get these things right about a one-page bill, how can anyone trust them to provide correct constitutional analysis of a bill far longer? I sure don’t. The post Mongering Fear: The Establishment Attacks appeare

I’ve got a message for Jan Brewer – and it’s pretty simple. So here goes. Pointing fingers and talking tough about some issues is one thing. ACTING tough – that’s another thing altogether. This week, as you travelled to Washington DC, you made this statement – “I have a duty and obligation to defend the people of Arizona – especially when the federal government fails to do their job.” You certainly do have a duty and an obligation. But the time for tough talk, Governor Brewer, is over. The time to act is upon you. AN IMPORTANT BILL ON YOUR DESK When you return from Washington DC this week, you’ll find that you have an extremely important bill on your desk – awaiting your signature. Senate Bill 1182 was passed by wide margins in your state’s legislature, 34-22 in the House and 20-8 in the Senate. What does this bill do? Well it’s pretty important stuff. It says this: This state and any agency of this state shall not provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the national defense authorization act of 2012, Public Law 112-81, against any citizen of the United States. Once you sign this bill into law, it will also make it a criminal offense for any public officer, employee or agent of the state of Arizona to make any attempt to assist in such federal kidnapping. If you think it’s hyperbole to use the word “kidnapping” to describe the so-called “indefinite detention” provisions of the NDAA, think again. When you remove due process from the equation, “indefinite detention” is really nothing more than government-sanctioned kidnapping. The Constitution is pretty straightforward when it comes to due process – and these newly-claimed federal powers are nothing short of an abomination on the limits that the Founding Fathers gave us. Like you said, you do “have a duty and obligation to defend the people of Arizona” – and that bill sitting on your desk right now is an opportunity for you to do so. CONCERNS But, I’m a little concerned that you don’t really mean what you say when you talk about defending the People of Arizona. For example, in 2010 the People of your state voted to approve a new medical marijuana program. The founders were clear that such decisions would be under the purview of the people of each state, not the federal government. But the feds on this issue, like on virtually everything else, have been interfering with the people’s choices for far too long. With that vote, the people of your state took a major step towards turning things around and putting the decision-making where it rightfully belongs. So what did you do? Well, you sued your own state in federal court to stop the people of Arizona from implementing the law they rightfully passed. And now you complain about the feds suing you? We can talk about that inconsistency another time. For now, let’s focus on moving forward and doing what’s right. For any true constitutionalist, there is an important principle at stake here, one that you appear to be willing to sacrifice because you disagreed with the policy chosen by Arizona’s voters. The federal government is only authorized to do what has been delegated to it in the Constitution…and nothing more. Period. DUTY TO THE CONSTITUTION It doesn’t matter if you like or dislike the policies – your duty and obligation – the oath you swore – means you need to help the people of your state do what they’ve set out to do. Reject unconstitutional federal acts. Whether those federal usurpations of power cover weed or “indefinite detention,” the end result is the same. Your duty to the people of your state – and to the Constitution – is to do everything in your power to stop anyone and everyone from violating their rights. That is, unless you prefer the Nancy Pelosi version of the Constitution and believe that all federal law is “supreme.” So which is it, Governor Brewer? Nancy Pelosi’s constitution or James Madison’s? The time for tough talk, ma’am, is over. The time for duty is now. It’s not next year, and not after the next election. It’s not next month and not next week. The time for you to step up and act is today, not tomorrow, right now. A simple stroke of the pen, and you’ve done your duty. Sign the bill Governor Brewer, and prove to Arizona and to the world that you’re more than just a bunch of tough talk or a wagging finger. Prove to all of us that you’re a constitutional hero. Your moment is now. ACTION ITEM FOR ARIZONA If you live in Arizona, contact Gov. Brewer now. Politely, but firmly, ask her to sign SB1182. Remind her that she has a duty to protect and defend the Constitution and an obligation to the people of Arizona. Tell her that the language in sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA is too vague and undefined to leave to chance. The federal government simply cannot be allowed to possess even a hint of such power. You can find contact information for the gove

In this special edition of Tenther Radio, Michael Boldin and Jason Rink are joined by Rob Natelson for a lesson on Habeas Corpus. Natelson is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado’s Independence Institute. “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Natelson explains What habeas corpus is – and why it is important. He gives us an overview of the Founders’ view of habeas corpus, and specifically, the Constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus. Also discussed are Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 – and why this should be of great concern to those who support liberty – and the writ of habeas corpus. Rob also discusses in more detail what he wrote in his book, The Original Constitution – “American state habeas statutes in force during the founding era sometimes protected only “citizens” However, the federal constitutional right was defined by English common law, and therefore extended to some non-citizens” – and the important 2008 Supreme Court case, Boumediene v. Bush. Finally, Natelson gives us his opinion of St. George Tucker’s view in 1803 that “Habeas corpus cannot be suspended, unless in cases of actual rebellion or invasion. A suspension under any other circumstances, whatever might be the pretext, would be unconstitutional, and consequently must be disregarded by those whose duty it is to grant the writ.” The post A Special Lesson on <i>Habeas Corpus</i> appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.