Tenth Amendment Center: Constitutional Conversation

The life of a liberty activist is not always the easiest road to follow. Sticking to principles and not simply selling out to the highest bidder can make it even tougher. We work long, long hours and get attacked from all sides of the political spectrum. Just by keeping the message the same, we see shifts over who leads those attacks too. For example, during the Bush years, we’d often get conservatives attacking us for opposing his unconstitutional policies. PEOPLE REALLY SAY THIS STUFF We hear things like – “Are you with the terrorists? Bush is just trying to keep us safe. That’s his job!” Or the classic… “You don’t like it here? Move to Cuba, commie!” These days, it’s the same kind of message, just a little moved around… “”He’s not waging a ‘war’ – he’s trying to save those people in Libya from a horrible dictator!” “You don’t like the Affordable Care Act…what, do you want black people banned from lunch counters, too?” Seriously. These are emails and comments we received. But look, I’m not complaining. I’m just saying that at times it is motivational to hear and read these things – from both average people and the media. And, at other times, especially after a week of 18 hour workdays, it can be quite draining. Why? Because with that kind of ignorant partisan-hackery being quite common – sometimes things seem, well…insurmountable. Pointless. Like, why not join with the masses, do a little shopping, enjoy the game, and refer to every single political conversation as “off limits” because we don’t want to think about it or deal with it. A SUPPORT SYSTEM No, that kind of thought doesn’t happen real often, but with most people who slug it out day in and day out – dragging through the mud pits against the monster government that exists today – such thoughts certainly come up from time to time. What’s my point? Without a support system – loving friends and family to back up our work – constantly pushing forward could never really happen. George Mason had his wife Ann. Henry David Thoreau had great friends in Ellery and Harrison. Rosa Parks had her husband Raymond. Today, people like Tom Woods have a foundation as solid as a rock with Heather. Jim Babka gets endless support from Susanne. Ron Paul has the backbone of an amazing woman like Carol. And my luck personally has been unbelievable – to have good friends who either directly support my work – or tolerate my endless ramblings about it. But no one, and I mean no one, has provided me more strength, support, motivation and success than my partner for life, Sarah. Being a special day, her birthday that is, tonight, I want to celebrate her support and love for me and the work I do. And with that, I think it’s essential for us to thank all the amazing people like Sarah out there – whether their name is Heather, Harrison, Susanne, or Raymond – this great movement for liberty couldn’t exist without you. OUR FAMILY Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we consider each and every one of you part of our family. Our community is strong – and growing stronger each year. This could never happen without you. Those of you who only read our website, or visit our YouTube or Facebook channels – you are extremely important to us. Every one of you on our national team – and every single state and local coordinator for us here at the Tenth Amendment Center – your participation has been essential. Members – old and new – bloggers and columnists, listeners to this show. Every one of you and more. THANK YOU! Each one of you plays a vital role – in moving this ship forward. No matter what they throw at us – forward is the only direction we know. Thank you Sarah, and all of you who take part in your own way – for helping make this happen. Become a member and support the TAC! So, to all of you non-activists out there – spouses, significant others, friends and family – each and every one of you is extremely important. The next time you have to hear one of us talk endlessly about some liberty-oriented issue that you consider to be unimportant, obscure, or even just downright boring…the next time you have to help one of us endure long work days with little sleep, stress, deadlines, personal attacks – and more – please remember this: You are appreciated. More than you likely could ever know. Thank you. The post Liberty with a Backbone appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

How often have you heard the term “middle ground” used in news reports, op-eds, on the radio, TV, and in social media? Okay, that’s a rhetorical question. In fact, this oft-mentioned and praised term has been bandied about as though it was handed down to us on stone tablets. And it often goes by a more frequently used term: compromise. But I’ll refer to the term middle ground here, because it is something we can visualize. It’s ground, don’tchya know—just like the other two “grounds” that aren’t referred to as such: “left” and “right”. But it’s hallowed ground. When we reach middle ground, we are admired by the vast middle grounders in society. We are enlightened. We have attained nirvana. The term middle ground is most often used in the political sphere, but it is not solid ground. The only solid ground in this Republic is the ground that was formed by the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries, who didn’t sacrifice so much only to have it become a vain exercise decades later. They didn’t create a nation that would become another England in so many ways, from encroaching on people’s liberties, to excessive taxation, and seeking to control other nations. By becoming middle grounders, we’ve become ungrounded. We’ve been sold a bill of goods over the decades, and most of us have come to savor those goods, which take the form of an imperial presidency, high taxation, reduced civil liberties, welfare, ad nauseum. We will accept mandated toilets, light bulbs, windows, auto standards, etc., as long as we aren’t hassled too much in our daily activities, as long as these mandates are “hidden” from us, buried in the regulations and duties imposed on businesses that serve us. We have less liberty, but hey, we’re safer. I’ve found that there are three main impediments to the effective restoration of our Republican form of government. The first is a populace ignorant of the founding principles of our Republic, as well as the principles that informed the Founding Fathers. Next is the outgrowth of that ignorance: our elected officials, practically all of whom forget, in daily practice, what country they are in. (They would be perfectly at home in any European socialist wonderland.) The last impediment is our income tax system, especially where the federal government found it to their advantage—not ours’ mind you—to have an income tax (a tax on our labor) withheld from our paychecks. This mandated, legalized pilferage has grown the federal government to a size that could not have been contemplated by the Founding Fathers, and as a result of this funding and growth, our freedoms have eroded. The bigger a central government becomes, the more it takes from the periphery – the states and the people – to maintain its hegemony. Many will dismiss this article as being “out there,” as not being middle groundish, but in so doing they make my point. And anyway, I couldn’t care less. I reference below the Introduction to the 1974 book: “Voices of the American Revolution,” by the People’s Bicentennial Commission. Reprinted in that book is an Associated Press release from the late 1960s: “Only one person out of 50 approached on Miami streets by a reporter agreed to sign a typed copy of the Declaration of Independence. Two called it ‘commie junk,’ one threatened to call the police, and another warned: ‘Be careful who you show that kind of antigovernment stuff to, buddy.’ Comments from those who took the trouble to read the first three paragraphs: ‘This is the work of a raver.’ ‘Somebody ought to call the FBI about this sort of rubbish.’ ‘Meaningless.’ ‘The boss’ll have to read this before I can let you put it in the shop window. But politically, I can tell you he don’t lean that way. He’s a Republican.’ Become a member and support the TAC! If anyone thinks our situation has improved since then, all they need to do is hear the responses to questions Jay Leno asks in his candid street interviews. The middle ground is a meaningless ground. It is a creation of those who muddle the issue of whether the federal government can do whatever it wants, or if it has to operate within its Constitutional constraints, specifically outlined in Article 1, Section 8 and buttressed by the Tenth Amendment. These muddlers or middlers are either disingenuous, or they are clueless. They either want the federal government to ignore the Constitution, or they want the federal government to assume extra powers because it is for the “good of the people.” (And it scores “I care” points for e politicians when it comes time for reelection.) The middle ground is not solid ground. It lies on a fault. And the fault is ours. “Compromise is but the s

Should we Rely on 9 People in Black Dresses to Save Us? NOTE: Michael Boldin will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! Philadelphia. Get tickets HERE – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS ******* Now that the Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of several parts of the “Obamacare” health care package, plenty of opponents are saying that there’s now a chance to get it overturned. How big of a chance? I think – Almost none. The unelected, unaccountable, politically-connected lawyers which make up the Supreme Court have done an absolutely horrible job of upholding the Constitution. In fact, from 1937-1995 the Supreme Court didn’t rule one single congressional act to be outside of their constitutional limits. 60 years – they ruled absolutely nothing unconstitutional, and that included much of the new deal and all of the Great society. Since that time, overruling Congress has been a rare occurrence, at best. Not a good track record at all. At times, I would argue that the Supremes have actually created most of the problems we face today. Why? Because they don’t like overturning their own decisions either. One ruling expands federal power, and the next one almost always seems to be based off the previous. Bad building blocks make for a dangerous foundation. And on top of it all, because of the way things have worked in this country for a long time, most people believe that they only have 3 options to stop federal power – 1) protesting and marching on DC in the hopes that federal politicians will limit their own power 2) voting the bums out, in the hopes that the new bums will limit their own power and 3) suing in court in the hopes that federal judges will limit federal power. Sorry to break this to you, but it ain’t working. For over 100 years, federal power has been on one path, and one path alone. It doesn’t matter which political party has been in charge in DC or which individual has been president – federal power always grows and your liberty is always less. George Will wrote in a column recently that “if the court were to ratify Congress’ disregard for settled contract law, Congress’ power to compel contractual relations would have no logical stopping point. Which is why this case is the last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government.” Sorry George, you’re wrong. We’ve been there for a long time already. When the federal government claims the power to determine the extent of its own powers – unlimited government is already here. Now if you happen to think, for some crazy reason, that claiming the power to tell you what size toilet you can have, what kind of light bulb you can own, or what kind of plant you can grow in your backyard it NOT unlimited power, it’s just a matter of time before politicians decide to start using the power they already have to do things that YOU consider unlimited. It’s just a matter of time. So, as the last 100+ years of nearly incessant growth of federal power proves to us already, even IF the supremes do the rare thing and rule against Congress, in a decade that’ll be just a blip. Without changing strategies – and stopping the insanity of going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal government – the freight train to totalitarianism will be unstoppable. Instead of begging, yet again, federal politicians to limit their own power, how about something different? That’s what we’ll be educating people about at Nullify Now! Philadelphia on March 31st. Multiple speakers and experts will teach you about what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison advised when 2 or more branches of the federal government attack the constitution and your liberty. The States. They not only have a right, but a duty, to stand up and say NO to unconstitutional federal acts. Most of what the feds do qualifies. Please join us in Philly on March 31st – you won’t just be educated. You’ll be empowered. https://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/ The post On Mandates, and Everything Else, Don’t Count on the Courts! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

United States Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta caused quite a stir last week (March, 2012) when he took the position that no approval from Congress is necessary to take offensive military action against Syria. He indicated the administration would make international approval a priority, with consultation with Congress a secondary consideration. Every day, it feels more and more like we live in what comes very close to being an elected dictatorship. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) asked the Secretary specifically, “Do you think you can act without Congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria?” He was visibly quite taken aback when Panetta responded. “Our goal would be to seek international permission, and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this — whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress…I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.” The defense secretary made it clear to the senator that the primary objective would be to first secure international approval for military action, and then tell the Congress what they might decide to do, after which the administration would consider asking for congressional approval. After Sessions expressed his complete dismay at the secretary’s clear intent to exclude Congress, which possess sole constitutional authority to declare war, from the decision making process, Panetta defended his position. “I’ve also served with Republican presidents and Democratic presidents who always reserved the right to defend this country if necessary.” Secretary Panetta correctly asserts that every president has rightfully reserved the authority to defend this country, if necessary. But I would also argue that a no-fly zone, or any other offensive military action in Syria, is far from necessary to defend the United States. As might be expected, there was no shortage of criticism from Republicans, much of it aimed at the administration for seeking international permission rather than the president usurping Congress’ constitutionally delegated war powers. I won’t name names, but many Republicans, who either pretended to be outraged or were genuinely upset, had no issues at all with previous Republican administrations using the military for offensive wars without prior permission from Congress. But that’s another article… Frankly, what surprises me is not Panetta’s claim that the president has unlimited authority to wage war without Congressional approval. Lots of presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, have claimed that authority, at least since Truman’s decision to intervene in the Korean War without consulting Congress. What surprises me is that anyone in the Obama administration still feels obligated to provide any kind of legal cover. Yet Secretary Panetta did bother to offer a up a fig leaf, asserting that the president has the right to defend this country without obtaining prior permission from Congress. I do think it is worth analyzing this statement, since it can illustrate something about what powers the Constitution actually delegates to the federal government when it comes to waging defensive war. So was Panetta correct about a president’s right to defend this country without permission from Congress? The Short Answer is, yes. I’m unaware of any reliable constitutional scholar who would deny that the president is empowered by the Constitution to repel an invasion of U.S. territory. In their book, Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush, Kevin Gutzman and Tom Woods explain the Framers’ intent. “Although the Constitution withholds from the president the power to commence hostilities, the Framers did envision a defensive presidential power to respond to attacks in extreme cases that will admit of no delay.” However, equating the initiation of a no-fly zone, air strikes against foreign military targets, or the commitment of ground forces, however small or covert, in a country located on the other side of the planet with “defending” our country is simply “rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts.”, as Jeremy Bentham once described a different set of ideas I happen to embrace. Even if the Assad regime, or the insurgents who might overthrow it, presented a clear and present danger to the United States, that would hardly justify military action without a declaration of war from Congress. As Kevin Gutzman and Tom Woods pointed out in the same chapter of their book, “Even when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt did not retaliate on his own authority but went to Congress for a declaration of war.” There is no constitutional basis whatsoever for engaging in offensive warfare unless the decision to do so is made by Congress. For a more detailed examination of this question, I highly recommend reading constitutional scholar, Robert G. Natelson’s article, “Obama’s Libyan

“I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012” Amazingly, these words are from United States Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a New York Times article entitled ‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World. The article goes on to quote a number of “Law Scholars”, Professors, Foreign Judges and our own Supreme Court Justices, all lamenting that our Constitution is out of touch with the modern world. One may dismiss the above quote coming from Ginsburg, a dedicated Socialist who worked for the A.C.L.U., has advocated the use of foreign law in shaping her opinions and has shown little respect for our Constitution throughout her career. However, her fellow Justice, the supposedly ultra-conservative and strict constructionist Antonin Scalia is quoted as saying “ The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours…we guarantee freedom of speech and of the press, big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protest, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!” All I can think of saying is, Holy C&@p! It is very frightening that these “reputable” scholars and Justices do not understand the meaning and intent of the Constitution they have sworn to honor and uphold. The drafters and ratifiers would be appalled at how the Supreme Court has “interpreted” a document meant to secure the rights of the people, not grant rights. These scholars seem to forget that thirteen individual and sovereign entities declared independence and fought a long bloody war to secure that independence against a tyrannical central government. These States created and then delegated certain limited and enumerated powers to their own central government in the hopes of securing the blessings of “Life, liberty and property (happiness)” to them and their posterity. The contentious debates during the State ratifying conventions were replete with concerns that they were delegating too much power to the central government. It was only because a “Bill of Rights” was promised to allay those concerns and …”in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the (federal governments) power that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added” that the Constitution was even ratified, and only by three votes in New York! James Madison in Federalist number Forty-Five states: “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. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Become a member and support the TAC! Most scholars seem to forget that there were thirteen individual Constitutions already guaranteeing “freedom of press, religion, speech, fair trials, and the right to keep and bear arms” long before the United States Constitution came into being. It was these individual and sovereign states and their constitutions, created by the people that protected their individual rights and liberties, not the United States Constitution or Federal government because neither were yet created! The United States Constitution was eventually adopted by the people of those States as a means to secure the liberties of the States united. The “scholars” quoted in the article do not seem to understand that the created cannot be greater than the creator. The States created the Federal government and its Constitution to protect their interest, not the rest of the worlds as some may believe. In fact, who cares what they think anyway. NOTE: The preceding was recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 37 on February 29, 2012. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link. The post Yes, They DO Hate the Constitution! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

When the Tenth Amendment Center co-hosted three events at CPAC in DC this month, the number one question we heard from people when talking amongst the crowds was this… “The 10th amendment. hmmmm…which one is THAT?” Seriously? Yup. Over and over. And over. We heard the same question. At first, with all the Tenther hype coming from people like Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and other mainstream conservatives, and the fact that at a recent Fox News/YouTube debate, the 10th Amendment was the highest requested question from conservatives around the country, I thought people were joking. Or, maybe they were testing us to see if we knew what we were talking about. But no, I was wrong. A large number of the people we interacted with at the biggest and most mainstream conservative event in the country had no clue what the 10th Amendment even is. And they wonder how this country could end up with someone like Barack Obama? Yeah, well, that’s another column altogether. After being asked that same question about the 10th a dozen or so times, I decided to give a much simpler reply. Like this – “The 10th Amendment is the one that says that feds are only allowed to do certain stuff. That stuff is in the Constitution. Everything else is left to each of the states as we the people decide.” That got some really positive responses. Good, because it’s true. PRACTICAL EXAMPLES After I got home to Los Angeles, I started to think about that question more and more And yes, while the basic principle I shared with people in DC is true, I recognize that people want and need to see practical examples of how something like this is actually playing out. Talking about how things “should be” is one thing. But sharing examples of how people are taking action on constitutional issues right now is far more powerful – in my opinion. When it comes to the Constitutional “rule of construction” known as the 10th Amendment, and actions being taken around the country to reject federal laws, regulations and mandates enacted outside the scope of their constitutional limits – there are loads of examples to share. In a quick one-on-one conversation, I’ll still continue to give my short version answer about the 10th, but in a forum like this, there’s a great opportunity to share a bit more. Like this…. “The 10th amendment is the one that says the feds can only do the few things allowed to them in the Constitution. And…that means people like you are empowered to do something about it when federal politicians violate those rules. In fact, people around the country are doing something about issues all across the political spectrum right now. They’re standing up and saying something that you and I should be saying to DC every single day…” NO! That’s right. A law passed outside the limits of the Constitution is no law at all. It’s an act of usurpation. And when the federal government passes “laws,” regulations…and mandates that aren’t authorized by the Constitution, you are not bound to obey them! HAPPENING RIGHT NOW Being early in the year, this is the time when state legislatures are working with people to find ways to say NO to Washington DC. Here are some of what I consider to be the biggest and best examples happening around the country today. 1. Banning Health Insurance Mandates Last fall, 66% of Ohio voters, and a majority of every single political demographic, approved Issue 3 – the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment. This state constitutional amendment says that “no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.” Ohio is the 10th state to pass something along these lines – a Health Care Freedom Act. And there are six other states considering similar measures already this year. Keep track of all the activity on this front here: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/health-care/ 2. Rejecting Indefinite Detention Ten years ago, if you would’ve called the Patriot Act “moderate,” I probably would have puked. But in comparison to what Barack Obama signed into “law” on December 31, 2011 – primarily sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act – that Bush-era tragedy for American liberty is mild. When due process is eliminated, these so-called “indefinite detentions” are little more than government-sanctioned kidnapping. And, personally, I believe any person who kidnaps should get some serious ramifications – whether they work for the government or not. Tennessee is currently considering a bill that would do just that – sanction federal agents with kidnapping charges in that state. Other states are taking the position that they will provide absolutely zero material support in any way with the federal government on this issue. The Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill which would make law that no agent of the Commonwealth could participate in supporting t

On Feb. 9, Esquire Magazine political blogger Charles P. Pierce reviewed the documentary film Nullification: The Rightful Remedy, a full-length movie produced by the Foundation for a Free Society and the Tenth Amendment Center. At least that’s what I think he reviewed. He called the film Nullification: The Original Remedy and claimed Citizens United produced the documentary. The fact that we showed the movie in the Citizens United Theater at CPAC apparently confused our fearless reviewer. In his online bio, Pierce claims he “has been a working journalist since 1976. He is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America.” Perhaps things have changed since 1976, but when I attended journalism school a few years ago, my professors put a lot of emphasis on getting basic facts correct. You know; things like the title of the movie you’re reviewing. And the producer. Granted, sometimes ascertaining facts can prove difficult. It takes a little effort and research. In journalism 101, I learned the importance of talking to people involved in my story to gather information and confirm my assumptions. For instance, if I were reviewing a film, I would want to talk to the director or perhaps a cast member from the movie. In fact, Pierce had that opportunity, as Jason Rink, the director and producer, Michael Boldin, the executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, and I were all in the room and accessible during the entire showing of the film. Crickets. To his credit, Pierce did issue a correction and an apology. You can read it here. But Pierce’s intellectual sloppiness rivaled his journalistic sloppiness. He excels at the straw man argument, and he sets up two in the opening paragraph. “You really have to give them credit for what they’ve built — a completely self-contained universe with its own laws and its own history, eminently comfortable and eminenly (sic) seductive. Nowhere is this more obvious in their tacit devotion to the government of the Articles of Confederation. You see, all of them here are devoted Tenthers, which is better than calling yourself a ‘states-rights person,’ because that still has some unpleasant resonance with events in Mississippi in 1962, although it’s coming back into vogue.” First, he sets up the Articles of Confederation straw man, and then hands the scarecrow a race card. He revisits these ideas throughout his piece. At one point, Pierce quotes Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on separation of powers and then quips, “And thus do New York and New Jersey once again stare daggers at each other across the Hudson because of import duties.” The comparison is absurd. The framers included interstate commerce regulation among Congress’ powers specifically to prevent import duties. No Tenther would ever deny the federal government’s role in that area. Pierce cleverly torches the straw man – a government under the Articles of Confederation, but fails to address the actual assertion – that we believe the framers meant what they said when they claimed they were creating a federal government of specific, limited powers. We don’t devote ourselves to the government created under the Articles of Confederation, but the federal government promised by Madison 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 the last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.” Speaking of Madison, we find Pierce’s most legitimate intellectual achievement in his pointing out that the fourth president tried to scurry away from his support of nullification later in life. Basically, he was for it before he was against it. But does his later vacillation invalidate the soundness of his earlier reasoning? Were there political considerations that led to his public backtracking late in life? And did he completely repudiate the principles underlying nullification? (Hint, he did not.) Pierce fails to address these questions. As for Jefferson’s unwavering support of nullification, our fearless journalist brushes off the author of the Declaration of Independence as “a bit of a wackadoo.” Pierce wraps his second straw man up in a KKK robe, implying that nullification must be racist because John C. Calhoun defended it during the tariff crisis between 1828 and 1832. But Calhoun did not advance the doctrine on behalf of slavery. In fact, his slave holding, while morally repugnant, has nothing to do with nullification whatsoever. Pierce uses an ad hominem attack on

The passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, with its provisions for detention of American citizens and resident aliens, certainly woke up many Americans to some very serious problems we’re facing right now. Over the last week, we’ve seen people never before interested in the work of the Tenth Amendment Center logging on to our website, quoting us in news stories, and emailing to ask how they can help. These folks span the political spectrum from left to right; Republican, Democrat and independent, and even the generally apathetic. The idea that your government can kidnap you seems to have lit off a firestorm. Some scoff at the use of the word “kidnapping,” calling it hyperbole designed to stir up emotions. But what else can you call it? kidnap: verb (used with object), -napped or -naped, -nap·ping or -nap·ing. to steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud… When you remove due process from the equation, arrest becomes nothing more than sanctioned kidnapping. Americans know this. We may suffer from frequent bouts of apathy, but we aren’t stupid. Just yesterday, I received and email from a dear woman in Washington state. Mr Maharrey; My husband served his country for over seventeen years, While in the Submarine Service. We as a family paid the price for our rights. How many Veterans now wish they had not wasted the time away from of their families. Yet sacrificed for our freedom. Only because Congress and Senate have written laws like these and many others. This one tops them all. Americans understand the draconian nature of these detention provisions. Now, many previously disengaged stand ready to fight. I say, welcome to the party! But make no mistake; this can’t end simply by rolling back the detention provisions of the NDAA alone, as important as that is. It took 100 years or more of federal government power grabs to bring us to this place. In August 1974, Pres. Gerald R. Ford told a joint session of Congress, ” A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” Many Americans cheerlead as the federal government take on roles never authorized by the Constitution. During the 1930s, large numbers of Americans praised FDR for his “New Deal.” They lauded Pres. Johnson for his “Great Society.” On the other side of the political spectrum, conservatives praised Pres. George W. Bush for the Patriot Act and clamored for a bigger badder “War on Drugs.” Federal environmental regulations, food regulations, health care acts, TSA gropes – the list goes on and on. Americans sat by quietly as the feds exercised more and more powers not delegated. Why? Because we thought those were “good” things. The government was trying to solve problems we knew needed solving. As long as we viewed those ends as justified, we ignored the unconstitutional nature of the means. Surprisingly, it looks like Gerald Ford was right. Because today, we see in the detention provisions of NDAA the legacy of 100-plus years of federal growth This is not the federal government our founders envisioned. They created a general government with limited powers, leaving the rest to the states and the people. Read closely the words of James Madison 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 the last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.” The framers limited the scope of the federal government for a reason. They knew something like NDAA would eventually come down the pike. At the Tenth Amendment Center, we don’t trust government power at ANY level. We know power corrupts. We know state and local governments do their fair share of nasty things. But we also recognize decentralization checks power. If government power is bad, centralized government power is much worse. Think of it this way: a cup of bleach is quite caustic. It can quickly burn skin and ruin clothes. Now dump that cup of bleach into two gallons of water. It can still whiten your clothes, and the bleach still retains a bit of a kick, but it can cause much less damage when diluted. Make no mistake; the Tenth Amendment Center aims to render the detention provisions in the NDAA null and void. But we won’t stop there. Our ultimate mission is to return to a proper balance of power between the states and federal governments, as intended by the founders and expressly stated in the Tent

Here’s a surprise for you – a significant inspiration for the activist methods here at the Tenth Amendment Center came from the American Civil Liberties Union. Yes, you heard that right – the ACLU. Back in 2005, the Bush Administration got the REAL ID Act slammed through Congress – and a lot of people from all across the political spectrum were pretty upset about it. The ACLU was clearly part of that. In fact, in September of 2005, they registered a domain name which is still active today – realnightmare.org. By January of 2006 (or possibly even before), they were already leading the charge nationally to oppose the previously passed federal act. Their new website was live and offering a LOT of good information about the problems with REAL ID. One of the most interesting sections of that website was part of their main header navigation – a button called “in the states” Here’s the text from that page as it stood on January 18, 2006: The Real ID Act does not directly change driver’s licenses – instead it threatens the states by stating that the federal government will not accept their citizens’ IDs unless the states change their laws. As a result, the Act cannot enter into effect unless the states change their laws and appropriate funds. This page will monitor and track such legislation, and other developments within the states. Interesting. Unless I’m mistaken, it sounds to me like the ACLU was recommending that states refuse to comply with the REAL ID Act of 2005. And, in fact, many states followed that advice over the next few years to some great effect – and the ACLU tracked those actions on that very page. For those of you who follow our work here at the Tenth Amendment Center this probably sounds quite familiar. On our legislative tracking page and through our state model legislation – this is pretty much what we do today. We encourage people to get active locally. We encourage states to refuse compliance with unconstitutional federal acts. And we provide model legislation on various issues to help in this process. Our goals? To render as many unconstitutional federal acts null and void – or simply unenforceable – in the states. And whether the issue is mandates, or regulations, or monetary policy, or the TSA – this method has been gaining more and more traction, and even major media attention, over the last few years. Fast forward to today – in sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, the US Federal Government has committed one of the worst attacks on your liberty in the history of this country. I never thought I’d see the day when George Bush, John Ashcroft and the PATRIOT Act seemed “moderate.” They weren’t, of course – but in comparison to what Barack Obama signed on December 31, 2011, they’re not even close. Within days of that so-called law being signed by Obama, a number of good people, including Blake at the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition – started working on draft legislation to reject this unconstitutional monstrosity at the state level. And today, within just a few weeks, already two counties have passed resolutions denouncing the act. Three states are considering binding laws to help nullify the act – and we have firm commitments from many others around the country to consider the same in the very near future. So what happened when Rhode Island State Representative Dan Gordon reached out to his state’s ACLU chapter on this? He tweeted about it on January 30: The RI ACLU chapter said they are opposed to #NDAA but won’t support my resolution due to it’s 10th Amendment assertion #ThePeoplesCaucus — Rep. Dan Gordon (@RepDanGordon) January 31, 2012 Maybe in Rhode Island, the ACLU has got a rogue chapter – or maybe not. But either way, here’s an important message for the ACLU – The 10th Amendment IS part of the Bill of Rights! Look, I get it. Every one’s got an agenda. We do too. The Constitution – every issue, every time. No exceptions and no excuses. That’s our agenda. But, that obviously doesn’t fit with what most other political organizations are trying to accomplish. We know that. That’s why we’re often a bit of an island here at the Tenth Amendment Center – debating with everyone. John Adams probably said it best when he wrote: …”I would quarrel with both parties and with every individual of each, before I would subjugate my understanding, or prostitute my tongue or pen to either.” So that’s us – principled to a fault, I guess. But, we are most certainly willing to work with just about anyone and just about any group on single issues. We don’t have to be in total agreement on everything to push back against the feds on one particular thing – that would be a recipe for disaster. A recipe that some – just might want it seem

There’s another GOP Debate this week, number twenty or so, I’ve lost count. If it’s anything like the previous debates, Gingrich will attack Romney, and Santorum will attack Paul, and Paul will attack Gingrich. And all of them will attack President Barack Obama. Then the media will rehash it all, putting their respective spin on it. But I want you to imagine for a moment these headlines the following morning: -Gingrich Arrested for “Food Stamp President” Remarks! -Congressman Paul faces Jail, Fines for criticism of Obamacare! -Obama Gets Last Laugh: Jon Stewart indicted for Seditious Libel! TAKING IT FOR GRANTED We take it for granted that during the Presidential Primaries, whoever is in office will be the target of serious criticism by the opposition. There will be negative ads exposing the flawed policies or moral failures of the Commander in Chief. There will be spirited debates between the Republicans and the Democrats over their differences, however slight, on foreign policy, the economy, and the role of government. We take it for granted that the mainstream media will be free to report on the activities and actions of US Senators, Congressmen, and the President. We take it for granted that, as is often the case, when the mainstream media fails to report on the real issues of the day, we can rely on the alternative media to expose the blatant hypocrisy, fraud, and waste that is regularly perpetrated by those who hold elected office. WHAT IF? But what if criticizing the President were Illegal? What if speaking, printing, or publishing a negative opinion about your Congressman was a federal offense? What if, in the United States, it wasn’t just illegal for the average citizen to do this, but also every radio host, every newspaper columnist, every television news anchor, and every candidate for public office. What if it were a federal crime to criticize the government? What would we do about it? This isn’t a fictional tale of what could happen in some dystopian future America from the mind of Phillip K. Dick or George Orwell. It already happened. It happened 214 years ago, during the administration of President John Adams. The year was 1798, when Congress passed and President Adams signed The Sedition Act into law. Just 7 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, that document which included as it’s First Amendment to the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when the Adams Administration passed this hateful piece of legislation which made it a crime to publicly or privately say anything that might bring the federal government into ill repute. We can imagine the debates that might have occurred on the House floor. A handful of legislators in the Jeffersonian tradition warning how this law could be used to silence dissent, shred the Constitution, and eventually prevent free and fair elections from ever taking place again. How can you possibly have fair elections if you can’t criticize the incumbents? We can imagine President Adams, upon signing it into law, perhaps saying that while he was uncomfortable with portions of the Act, and it was by no means a perfect piece of legislation, it was necessary for the safety and security of our young nation. He may have even assured the citizens that it would never be used against them, not in any way that abridged their Constitutional right to free speech. BIG POWER = BAD NEWS But Thomas Jefferson and James Madison knew what would happen. Jefferson wasn’t surprised when Congressman Matthew Lyon from Vermont was imprisoned for criticizing President Adams’ foreign policy. Madison wasn’t surprised when newspaper editors were jailed and printing presses seized. Jefferson and Madison both knew that whenever the Federal Government–whenever Congress, and the President, and even the Supreme Court–when they conspired together to expand government power at the expense of the liberty of the people, something would have to be done. They knew that something would have to be done, and that it was up to the States to do it. That’s why, in 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Jefferson said that “whenever the General government assumes undelgated powers, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” Madison said that when the federal government steps beyond its constitutional authority, the States are “duty bound” to resist. The Sedition Act eventually expired on March 3, 1801. But it’s legacy lives on. FAST FORWARD TO TODAY In 2001 President George W. Bush signed into law what Judge Andrew Napolitano calls “the most hateful piece of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts”–The USA PATRIOT Act, which granted

NOTE: The above was recorded by Michael Boldin at the close of Tenther Radio Episode #31. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link. ******* The United States federal government finds a seemingly endless array of ways to exercise authority it does not rightly possess. But perhaps the widest path to the destruction of state sovereignty winds its way through the Constitution’s commerce clause. Since the infamous Wickard v. Fliburn case, the feds use the commerce clause to justify virtually unlimited intrusion into nearly every corner of American life. From regulating the nation’s entire health care system to waging a “war on drugs,” federal agents wield power over the states and the people via the commerce clause. Rep. John Yarmuth reluctantly admitted the truth during a radio interview in August 2010. The show host asked the Kentucky Democrat: what can’t the federal government do if it can mandate Americans must purchase health insurance. “It really doesn’t prohibit the government from doing virtually anything – the federal government. So I don’t know the answer to your question, because I am not sure there is anything under current interpretation of the commerce clause that the government couldn’t do,” Yarmuth replied. Of course, the commerce clause was never intended to grant such sweeping power. It was meant to allow the feds to regulate trade across state lines with some ancillary power to regulate shipping and transportation. That’s it. It didn’t grant the federal government the power to regulate manufacturing or agriculture, and it certainly wasn’t meant to allow the feds to interfere with commerce engaged in strictly within a state’s own borders. James Madison alluded to the limits of the commerce regulating power. “It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.” Some states are beginning to fight back against federal intrusion into intrastate commerce. Legislatures in Iowa, Florida and New Hampshire will consider bills during the 2012 session that seek to reestablish the states’ control over commerce within their borders. And the Tenth Amendment Center expects a number of other states to follow suit this year. House File 380 in Iowa reaffirms that the Constitution grants the federal government the power to regulate commerce among the several states, but the power to regulate intrastate commerce is reserved to the states or the people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The bill goes on to declare: All goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the boundaries of this state that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries of this state shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce. If the bill passes into law, any agent attempting to enforce federal law in violation of the act would be guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor and subject to appropriate penalties. The Iowa bill, sponsored by Rep. Kim Pearson (R-Pleasant Hill), was initially filed in Feb. 2011 and will carry over into the 2012 session. Senate File 272, introduced at the same time by Sen. Kent Sorenson, serves as the companion bill. A second Senate bill, Senate File 385, with 11 co-sponsors, proposes even stricter penalties. It would make it a class D felony to enforce any federal law interfering with intrastate commerce – that’s commerce within Iowa’s borders. Rep. Matt Caldwell (R-Ft. Meyers) and Sen. Greg Evers (R-Crestview) sponsor the Florida version of the Intrastate Commerce Act. The bills’ language reads similar to Iowa’s, and the Florida act also makes it a felony for any agent to enforce federal law on intrastate commerce within Florida. The New Hampshire General Court will consider HB1406. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Richard Ockerman (R-Rockingham) and Marc Tremblay (R – Berlin), declares, “all goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the boundaries of the state that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries of the state shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce.” The New Hampshire Intrastate Commerce Act does not stipulate penalties for agents attempting to enforce federal law on intrastate commerce. But the New Hampshire General Court will take up stronger intrastate commerce legislation applying specifically to food grown in the

From mandates to milk. From weed to war. And everything in between. Very little of what the federal government does is authorized by the Constitution. While the Constitution is clear that the federal government is one of limited, delegated powers – in practice, without popular resistance, the federal government people do whatever they please. They tell us we have to buy a health insurance plan, what size toilet we can have, and what kind of light bulbs we can buy. They read your emails, listen to your phone calls, monitor your bank accounts – and even claim the power to arrest and detain you indefinitely, without due process. For far too long, the United States Federal Government has deployed troops to every corner of the world, waged offensive wars without a declaration by Congress, silenced and kidnapped its enemies, authorized the torture of prisoners, engaged in espionage, imposed crippling embargoes, pillaged our resources, taken our property, and destroyed our economy and our environment. On top of it all, these government people tell us – the sovereign people – what IT has the legal authority to do, instead of the other way around. And it hasn’t mattered what political party has been in power or what individual has occupied the White House. Year in and year out – federal power always grows and your liberty is always worse off. So for those of you who believe that the path to the Constitution and your liberty is not through the federal government – but instead through Jefferson, Madison…..and other state capitols around the country – here’s a few steps that you can take right now. 1. Contact your state legislators right now. With state legislative sessions getting underway all over the country, the time to put pressure on your state to nullify unconstitutional federal acts is now. Not next year, and not sometime this summer. Not next month or next week. Today – not tomorrow – right now. Think of one federal issue that’s extremely important to you. Focus on just one right now. Contact your state legislators and politely but firmly demand that they do what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison advised – stand up for the Constitution in your state today. And it’s easy for them to do this – by introducing a bill rejecting a particular federal act Let them know that they won’t be alone! Over the past few years, legislators around the country have been introducing bills to reject federal acts on issues across the political spectrum. Let them know that you’re watching what they do this year, and that while you recognize they have many legislative ideas on deck already, that you expect them to take action on at least one thing to push back against Washington DC. Let them know that you can get them help with model legislation and even with talking points Let them know that we have proof that when enough people and enough states stand up and say NO to Washington DC, there’s not much the feds can do to force their unconstitutional federal laws, regulations and mandates down our throats. And when you get responses by phone, mail or email – make sure to let us know about it here at the Tenth Amendment Center – [email protected]. 2. Educate your friends and family Share as much of this information as possible with friends, family, people you meet who express an interest in limiting federal power. Some of the most important articles and pages to send to others include: Thomas Jefferson’s Other Declaration – by Derek Sheriff The States’ Rights Tradition Nobody Knows – by Tom Woods The Untold History of Nullification: Resisting Slavery – by Derek Sheriff The Tenth Amendment Center’s legislative tracking page Model Legislation from the TAC – to recommend bills for introduction in your state 3. Disobey. Seriously. Whether it was the stamp act in the 1760s or the fugitive slave act in the 1850s, to nullify requires people defying government edicts. In the spirit of Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Samuel Adams – when enough people say NO, change can and will happen. So that’s why step # 3 is to Disobey….Seriously. Now I’m not recommending that you go out and just start defying every law in existence. With resistance comes risk – and it’s your choice as to just how much risk you’re willing to take. And whether that risk is small or great, every bit is essential. For decades, courageous pot smokers have been defying every law imaginable – on possession, cultivation, commerce and more. They’ve defied Congress, the Executive Branch the DEA and even the Supreme Court. And today, because so many people decided that they would make their own decisions about whether or not they could use a naturally-occurring plant – there are now 15 states that have backed them up by passing laws allowing such use. I’ve asked this question in speeches around the country, and ask it again

via DownsizeDC How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans Congress just passed, and the President just signed, a bill that gives legal authority to the President to kidnap and perpetually imprison persons, including American citizens, without the benefit of due process. Members of Congress, in the days leading up to the vote, tried to assure their constituents that they have nothing to fear — that the bill doesn’t apply to Americans. Some were lying. Most were deceived. Now, I don’t want to imply that Barack Obama plans to sweep up every one of his critics (or even a select few) because of statements they’ve uttered publicly. That is overstatement. The law doesn’t permit that. But consider the following scenario… You object to the way the Federal Leviathan State is run. You gather, every other Tuesday, with others who share your values. We’ll call your fictional group the Constitution League (CL). One night, a new fellow shows up. He’s frustrated and outspoken. He complains that the time for meetings is over. Something must be done — something that will “get their attention.” You’re uncomfortable with his remarks but unsure how to respond. You hope he never returns, and he doesn’t. What you don’t know, until months later, is that one of our CL colleagues, the chapter Vice President, followed the vocal man out to the parking lot. The two exchanged email addresses and phone numbers. Then, your local VP reached out to a third man, a member of a CL chapter in the nearest big city. The three met regularly. They plotted and executed their own terrorist plot on a U.S. Government facility. Now, your group meeting was the place they met. The Vice President used his CL email account. CL is all over the news. CL is now, for all intents and purposes, a terrorist group. And you? Well, you’ve donated to the terrorist organization. You’ve participated in its meetings. The night this angry man walked in, you didn’t call the authorities. * Can the President have the military come and arrest you? Yes! * Can he (or she) send you to a military tribunal for trial or just hold you indefinitely in a military facility, without charges? Yes! Even the bill co-sponsor, Senator McCain, appears to agree with this assessment. Senator Rand Paul asked John McCain, on the Senate floor, “…under the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen could be declared an ‘enemy combatant’ and sent to Guantanamo Bay, and detained indefinitely?” McCain responded, “I think that as long as that individual, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, if they POSE A THREAT to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue the threat.” {Emphasis Added} Wait a minute. Wasn’t there a provision in this bill that exempted Americans? Despite what your Congressional office may have told you (if you called during the debate over this bill) the answer to that question is an emphatic NO! The relevant sections of the bill are 1021 and 1022. * Section 1021 asserts the President’s authority to arrest suspected (not convicted) terrorists and gives him the option to choose whether or not they even get a trial, and if so, what kind of trial. * Section 1022 requires that a certain class of terrorist get no trial. Instead they must be held in military prisons, for as long as this President, or any future President desires. SECTION 1021 Section 1021 is very expansive in its reach. It “includ[es] any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.” * Who is “any person?” * What is a “belligerent act?” * What is “direct support?” One could be safe in assuming these words mean whatever a creatively-minded prosecutor, a flexible judge, and an ignorant jury define them to mean — EXCEPT THAT, UNDER THIS ACT, ONE MIGHT NEVER GET AS FAR AS A COURT HEARING. These terms will be defined by the bureaucrats in power. They could be used against political opponents. 1021 has NO exceptions. There’s not even a hint of an exception. Remember, that section gave the President the authority to arrest you and a set of options on how you were to be handled. These choices are completely divorced from the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, as well as the Treason provisions of Article III. The President’s new alternatives are… 1. Detention without trial by the military 2. Trial by a military commission 3. Trial by some other court of the President’s choosing 4. Shipping you off to a foreign jurisdiction (info here) SECTION 1022 1022 is a REQUIREMENT — a binding mandate upon the President. President Obama threatened to veto the bill, but only because he feared 1022 would restrict his power too much. https://gawker.com/5866210/jon-stewart-bashes-ob

With the Tenth Amendment Center team constantly focusing on what’s next, it’s easy to lose sight of how far we’ve come already. Looking in the rear view mirror, 2011 was big, but 2012 is looking to become a watershed year for us. The past 5 ½ years have been a whirlwind of progress. But, we realize we wouldn’t be where we are today without the continued support of proud Tenthers like yourself. Special thanks goes out to you for contributing in your own way to this growing Tenther Revolution! From mainstream media attacks and events around the country, to Obamacare and TSA nullification efforts growing in the states, we’ve helped educate and activate people nationwide not only on just what the Constitution authorizes the federal government to do, but what exactly you should do when those strict Constitutional rules are violated. Our efforts have seen triumphs and setbacks – and at times they may have seemed trivial. But, each step of the way has been yet another step forward in our mission. That’s the Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions and no excuses. In what felt like a monumental task, I wanted to share with you an overview of the year 2011 for both the Tenth Amendment Center, and the national Tenther Movement. From events to milestones to media coverage and the like – keep reading to see our favorite memories and milestones… Sheriff Mack in Phoenix JANUARY: KICK OFF We started the year working hard to get the word out to state legislators that it’s not just a good idea, but it’s their duty to stand up and say no to unconstitutional federal acts. As a result, states around the country were considering nullification as the rightful remedy to everything from federal gun regulations and Obamacare, to the EPA and an overbearing FDA. (see our legislative tracking page here) Sheriff Richard Mack joined Stewart Rhodes, Gary Johnson, Charles Goyette, Robert Scott Bell and others at the relaunch of the Nullify Now! tour in Phoenix. More than two-hundred joined us that day to learn how to stop DC at your state line. FEBRUARY: FIRST IN THE NATION! In February, the Idaho House became the first legislative body in the country to pass the TAC’s Health Care Nullification Act – a bill that rejected not just health insurance mandates, but the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care act. Our model legislation states, in part: Idaho Nullification Hearing ***the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” interferes with the right of the People of the State of _____________ to regulate health care as they see fit, and makes a mockery of James Madison’s assurance in Federalist #45 that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”*** While the bill didn’t end up passing into Idaho law, the massive amount of media attention paid to the issue gave legislators in other states the idea that they could – and should – use nullification too. A small setback was clearly leading to larger breakthroughs for the future. MARCH: MORE EVENTS In March, the Nullify Now! tour rambled on to Cincinnati and New Hampshire. Both were special events, but the Ohio one was quite unique. Held at the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center – in the Harriet Tubman Theater – Nullify Now! Cincinnati focused heavily on the story of Joshua Glover. Joshua escaped slavery to freedom in Wisconsin, only to be arrested a short while later. Federal agents held Joshua for a short time before the people there – in large numbers – decided that this man wasn’t supposed to be just sent back to slavery in the south. Instead, they broke him free. A later case had the Wisconsin Supreme Court calling upon the Principles of 98 to justify resistance to Federal Fugitive Slave laws in what was a widespread effort by Northern States to nullify slave laws. ******* Please Consider a Gift to Help Keep the TAC Active – and Growing. We Need Your Help! ******* Two weeks later, we were on our way to New Hampshire. Actually, it was a little less than two weeks as we decided to use the federally-funded AmTrak as a protest against the TSA. 70+ hours on a train was fun, but not a convenient way to travel on a regular basis! It was good to connect with many long-time supporters in New Hampshire, visit the studios of Free Talk Live (which runs the LRN.FM network rebroadcasting Tenther Radio!), and spend some time with our good friends Mike Rogers and family. Mike – thanks for all your amazing support. You really went above and beyond the call of duty, and we were proud to make you our first Tenth Amendment Center lifetime member! APRIL: UPPING THE ANTE Two days before getting to Nullify Now! Austin, Rachel Maddow gave the TAC a nice, big gift. She spent nearly 15 minutes on MSNBC attacking our work specifically and the Nullification movement in general. In my response, posted here and on LewRockwell.com

Please Help us Today! by Michael Boldin NOTE: Recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 26, the following is a special Bill of Rights Day message from Michael Boldin. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link. I want to wish you a very Merry Christmas – a Merry Christmas from myself, and everyone who works to make the wheels turn behind the scenes here at the Tenth Amendment Center. Being able to do the work that I do – something that I love and have passion for – is a gift like none other. Even with all the hard work, the long hours, the attacks from both left and right – I consider this the greatest gift in the world. I’m truly lucky to have the Tenth Amendment Center as my life’s work. Without all of you who listen, who read and who support our work in so many different ways, this conversation would not be happening right now. Thank you for this gift you’ve given to me personally and all of us at the Tenth Amendment Center. GIFTS AIN’T EASY I’ve always had trouble with the standard American holiday-season gifts – felt kind of uncomfortable with them – ever since I was a little kid. Maybe it’s because I have spatial issues – and can’t wrap a present worth a damn. Maybe it’s because I was taught at an early age that life wasn’t about accumulating “stuff” – it was about being a good person and finding real happiness in what’s already around us. Or maybe I just learned something practical from our family getting what was known as “government cheese” when I was young. What might that be? Well, in the case of government providing a food product – sometimes gifts just suck. I’m just not good at gifts, and I’m really not good at asking for them either. But here I am, leading a 5 ½ year old organization that’s helping change the national political discussion. Because of this, I really need to learn how to do this, and do it now. So here goes – and please bear with me as I give this my best shot. As we approach Christmas – and the end of 2011 too – can you please help us continue our work at the Tenth Amendment Center with your most generous gift possible? We really, really need your help right now! [You can help us out with a gift at https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/help/] PROJECTS HAPPENING, AND PLANNED I’m not talking about some massive money-bomb kind of funding, we only need a total of $10,000 to ensure that our base operating costs are covered for the first half of 2012. We’ve got the Tenther Radio show to produce and grow, more Nullify Now! events to schedule, a large monthly web hosting bill, and more. John Michaels, who has been doing production for Tenther Radio for six months now, has been working 10-15 hours every week for just $200 a month. That works out to somewhere around 5 bucks an hour. Bryce Shonka, our deputy director, has been working at a rate of just 10 dollars an hour for almost three years now. These men are just two of the many examples that I can share about people who have dedicated their time, their energy, and their passion to help this Tenther Movement reach the mainstream – which has been happening for some time now. And this doesn’t even take into account the many people who work without pay entirely – the volunteers who help us spread the word, the members of our TAC team who contribute their time and energy without a promise of financial return, and even send us yearly pledges of up to $72 each for the opportunity to hold the TAC mantle in their state. Bottom line? We all pitch in as much as we can – our energy, our sweat, and our hard-earned dollars – at every opportunity possible. But, we can’t expect every person to do this forever, and we need to be able to pay some of our basic expenses to continue our work for the Constitution and your liberty. YOU. THE FUEL THAT DRIVES THIS THING The only way to do this is with your help. So, in this season of love, remembrance and giving, please keep the Tenth Amendment Center in your mind, your heart, and yes – I don’t how else to say it other than by being direct – your wallet too. We just need a minimum of $10,000 to cover our basics – to continue our mission for The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions and no excuses. But, we cannot succeed with out your help, and the funding to mount principled and effective campaigns against unconstitutional “laws,” regulations and mandates. We do not (and will not) accept government grants or contracts, nor do we have an endowment or any corporate backing. Beyond our base expenses, there are so many other projects that are ready to be launched or expanded. And with just a little more help from you, we could get moving on them right now. Building and growing our own Tenther News website – to provide you a place to stay up to date on all the news around the country with a 10th amendment perspective p

by Michael Boldin NOTE: Recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 26, the following is a special Bill of Rights Day message from Michael Boldin. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link. ******* Today is an important day in American history. On December 15, 1791, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution – known as the Bill of Rights – came into effect through the process of ratification by the States. Most people have their own view of what the purpose and effect of the Bill of Rights was supposed to be. Some think it authorizes DC to enforce a nationwide free speech zone. Others think it requires the Feds to protect the right to keep and bear arms in every nook and cranny in the country. And others think that there must be a nationwide separation of church and state in every state, county, city and town. To those of you who believe that federally-run education in this country has destroyed public knowledge of the Founders’ Constitution, my next comment is no shocker – all of these people are wrong. According to the founders, that is. THE BASICS First, we have to understand why we even have a Constitution – and thus – a Bill of Rights. The entire founding generation toiled under the tyranny of the King of England, a king that had no virtually no limits on his power. He could make rules as he went, change them on a whim, and change them back. He could seize your property, your labor or your life – and you could do almost nothing about it. Because of this, the Constitution was written to spell out the limited powers delegated to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that this government had no powers that weren’t delegated to it in the Constitution. The original Constitution contained no Bill of Rights. Many of the Framers felt it wasn’t necessary since the Constitution clearly enumerated the few powers delegated to the federal government. They thought any further restrictions would be redundant. However, some of them thought there could be misunderstandings. So a Bill of Rights was proposed – and some states ratified the Constitution only on condition that those amendments would be added, which happened a few years later. A PREAMBLE? Adding a preamble to a legal document was common practice at the time. It could indentify the parties, list important facts, and explain the purpose of the document. Many people are unaware that, like the main body of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights had a preamble too – explaining its purpose. So what was this purpose? No better way to answer that question than in the words of the founders themselves – the preamble to the Bill of Rights: The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added… Rob Natelson, in his book The Original Constitution explains what this means: “Thus, some of the proposed amendments were “declaratory…clauses” (that is, rules of construction) designed to “prevent misconstruction” of the Constitution by explaining how the instrument should be interpreted. The rest were “restrictive clauses” to prevent “abuse” of federal powers by creating external limitations curtailing those powers.” [emphasis added] The important message here is that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to you, it doesn’t apply to me, it doesn’t apply to any person at all. It applies to the federal government. NOT THE STATES? NO WAY! Maybe it’s because most people weren’t taught that a Preamble to the Bill of Rights even existed, or maybe because they confuse the word “constitutional” with the word “good” – but it’s quite rare to find someone who doesn’t disagree with the preamble to the Bill of Rights. Many opponents claim things like… “The 1st Amendment is the only one that mentions just Congress, so the rest apply to everyone and not just congress.” “The states agreed to the Bill of Rights, and combined with the Supremacy clause, that means the states can’t violate those parts of the constitution.” While there are others, these are some of the most prominent reasons people give for – essentially – disagreeing with the Founders themselves on the Bill of Rights. Each could use a full discussion on their own, but the important points are: 1. The First Amendment – this was the only Amendment which specifically prohibited the making of a law. When the Founders wrote the word “law” in the First Amendment, they meant it. And Congress was the only branch of government that was supposed to make law. So today, while we have an executive branch that makes law through executive order, and a judicial branch that legislates from the bench; at the time of the founding it w

by Michael Boldin “The liberties of the freest people are in danger when they set up symbols of liberty as fetishes, worshipping the symbol instead of the principle it represents.” –Wendell Phillips NOTE: Recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 25, the following is a special message from Michael Boldin about principles of the founders – timeless principles for liberty. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link. The Constitution was written and ratified by people who shared certain core principles and values. No, they didn’t agree on everything, of course, but there were some basics that undoubtedly found strong consensus. As we read in Rob Natelson’s book, The Original Constitution, “those who thought the Constitution would further those values and principles tended to be Federalists. Those who thought the Constitution subversive of those values and principles tended to be Anti-Federalists. But all agreed that the nation’s basic law should be structured to further those values and principles.” You won’t find, for example, too many of the founders advocating for gun control. I know of none. This tends to be quite confusing to many people today when considering the fact that these same founders wrote the 2nd Amendment, and the entire Bill of Rights for that matter, to apply to the federal government only, and not the states. So while they created a system where state governments could have significantly restricted the right to keep and bear arms, they didn’t advocate for such actions. The short version, the reason why? Like most things, the founders felt that the best way to promote liberty was through decentralization of power, as the 10th Amendment enshrines in the Constitution. But my goal here isn’t to talk about the 2nd Amendment, it’s to talk about foreign policy. And, as discussed here for two weeks in a row, the founders had a pretty strong consensus on foreign policy. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both strongly advocated a foreign policy of peace, trade – and one without “entangling alliances.” James Madison considered war to be the greatest threat to liberty. And James Wilson told us this about the Constitution, “This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it.” Why? Because a clear core principle of the founding generation was liberty, and because war, as Madison told us, was considered liberty’s greatest enemy, they set up a system to promote peace and avoid war. The founding generation, starting years before the ratification of the Constitution, wanted to do everything possible to avoid war – and to wage it only as a matter of self-defense. The colonial militia at Concord held their fire even after the British had fired upon them, killing two Americans. It was only when one of their commanding officers yelled “Fire, for God’s sake, fellow soldiers, fire!” that they actually fired upon the British. Three months later they still sent what was known as the Olive Branch Petition to King George in an attempt to avoid all-out war.** When Thomas Paine began a series of pamphlets in the Winter of 1776 with the words, “These are the times that try men’s souls….” – he continued on to sum up this view quite well: “Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it…am I to suffer it?” These weren’t however, just principles and values for the times. The founders crafted a Constitution – deliberately – to promote these core values and principles – for the ages. “We are not forming plans for a Day, Month, Year or Age, but for Eternity,” wrote John Dickinson, the penman of the revolution. So while the founders created a system of government where a state, like Massachusetts for example, could set up a system of health insurance mandates on the people there, one would be pretty hard pressed to find anything from the founders advocating such a thing. They also set up a Constitution with an amendment process – but does that mean that the founders advocated for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment? Of course not. And when it comes to foreign policy, their core principles also hold true over time. When the Founders advised peace and avoidance of entangling alliances, they meant it. Of course, on this and just about everything else, those of us who believe in following the path of the founders regularly hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed.” A recent commenter on the Tenth Amendment Center website best summed up this view when he wrote – “We must not … faithfully attempt to hitch our wagons to an anachronistic 18th century foreign policy approach in the 21st century.” The obvious question, then, is t

by Michael Boldin NOTE: Recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 24, the following is a special message from Michael Boldin about next week’s show on Pearl Harbor Day, covering war powers and the Constitution.. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link. I want to close the show tonight by – well – inviting you to tune in to next week’s show, at 5pm Pacific time on Wednesday December 7, 2011. This is not your normal “tune in next week…” message. December 7 being the anniversary of the Pearl Harbor tragedy in 1941, we’re going to spend most of our time on something that’s not discussed enough in constitutional circles – war powers and the constitution. We’ll be joined for nearly 40 minutes by someone who is probably the nation’s leading expert on war powers, Dr. Louis Fisher – who spent four decades working at the Library of Congress as Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers, and is currently Scholar in Residence at the Constitution Project. Dr. Fisher has been invited to testify before Congress about 50 times on such issues as war powers, state secrets privilege, NSA surveillance, CIA whistleblowing, covert spending, presidential impoundment powers, and plenty more. When it comes to an understanding from the perspective of the founders – he’s got few equals. This week, Tenth Amendment Center national communications director, Mike Maharrey, started this conversation with an extremely important article entitled “I love George Washington. Except for his Foreign Policy.” In it, he points out what I consider to be a troubling, and very glaring inconsistency in the views of many self-professed supporters of the Founders’ Constitution today – their views on the constitution and foreign policy. Mike tells a personal story of his own views on foreign policy. He writes: “Over the last year or so, I’ve been struggling to redefine my views on foreign policy. As a former neo-conservative, I enthusiastically embraced the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I readily accepted the notion that military force serves as a legitimate tool for nation-building.” He continues… But it doesn’t take a doctorate in foreign relations to understand that U.S. policy has forged a tangled mess of contradictory alliances and obligations, and created a much more dangerous world. I’ve gradually come to accept that military intervention in foreign affairs typically causes more damage than good and that the whole concept rests on morally dubious grounds. Who am I to point a gun at another man’s head and demand he practice “democracy”? Mike goes on to explain how he used to, like many others still do today, consider such foreign policy views, which are most commonly put forth by Ron Paul, to be quackery. But, in his study of the founding generation, he recognized that such views line up pretty closely with the stated positions of a president that’s actually revered by most Americans – George Washington. Here’s a little of what Washington had to say about foreign policy in his 1796 farewell speech: “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” He continued… “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…” Now, Washington, like all other humans, certainly had his flaws, and had flaws as a president too. But, how often do you hear people admonishing Washington’s foreign policy views? I never do. So, while we hear many people today – especially conservatives – say that they really like the constitutional viewpoints of a person like Ron Paul, they’ll commonly turn around and say, well, “except for his foreign policy.” But the fact of the matter is this – virtually all of the founders held this kind of foreign policy viewpoint, and because of that alone, it should never be called quackery…unless you consider the founding fathers a bunch of quacks. Thomas Jefferson summed it up perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” James Madison, father of the constitution, put is this way – “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.” Jefferson, Madison, Washington – they strongly opposed foreign policy interventionism. They all opposed wars that did anything but repel invasions here in America, and they also advised against the kind of favored-nation status that is used so o

by Michael Boldin NOTE: Recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 23, the following is a special Thanksgiving message – and a big thank you – from Michael Boldin and the TAC. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link. Sometimes the life of an activist, as I’ve chosen for a long time now, can be the most exciting and exhilarating way to live….and, in all honesty at other times it can be trying and extremely difficult. Holidays are never easy, as the salary of an activist for the constitution and liberty is rarely enough to be able to afford even a flight home to visit family. I’d like to think that $5-600 is something that I could save up for and spend without worry, and I try every year. But, every year things come up that seem to prevent it. Website security upgrades, covering staff expenses, organizing events, and more. Taking care of this family business is essential, and probably why the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” still makes me cry every time I see it. So, this week, while I will certainly miss Sarah, the love of my life, who’s visiting her family in St. Louis, and I will miss my own family which I’m unable to visit in Milwaukee, I know I have much to be thankful for. I’m thankful for Sarah…and the life we’ve lived already and will live together in the future. I’m thankful for my family…for bringing me into this world and helping mold me into the person I am today. I’m thankful for the strength to do what I do, every day…for the motivation to work the seemingly endless hours, and for the love of liberty which makes it all worthwhile. I’m thankful to each and everyone of you who listen to this show. Without you, we wouldn’t be doing this right now. I’m thankful for all of you who share this show and the Tenth Amendment Center in general. And those of you who decide to donate to help fund our mission. Whether the amount you give is $5 or $500, every penny helps us in our relentless drive to become a force, and every one of our successes has happened because of you. (help us out here) Thank you, Lesley Swann, for spending this time with us tonight. John Michaels for another great job producing the show. Bryce Shonka for all the work you do in the trenches every week. Jason Rink, and Nick Hankoff…Without all of you coming together week in and week out, we wouldn’t be able to do what I think is a consistently better and better job at this all the time. Thank you to each and every one of you who volunteers and participates with us at the TAC….coordinators, team members, state chapters, bloggers, every one of you is essential to our future. (volunteer here) I’m thankful for the fact that our message is gaining serious traction in the national discussion, and it bridges the political divide, too. On the right, conservative voters recently picked the 10th amendment as the most important question to pose to republican presidential candidates. And as we heard earlier tonight, groups from the left are increasingly citing the 10th in defense of their choices too. With your help, we’ve been educating people for over five years that the constitution isn’t about political parties or political ideologies…and it’s catching on! I’m thankful for skype! I wish they’d sponsor the show financially, but I’m happy they exist. Not only do they give us an inexpensive way to connect our hosts and guests, they also give me an opportunity to have some face time with my family during holidays when I can’t visit in person. Video calls save the day! I’m thankful for all the great friends I’ve made around the country on this wonderful journey. Tom and Heather Woods and the whole family, Anthony Gregory, Jim Babka, John Bush and Cat Bleish, Jason Rink you get a 2nd mention, Matt Shea, Jordan Page, Danny Panzella, The McKees, Eddie Allen, Doug Tjaden, Mark Kreslins, Mike Maharrey, Robert Scott Bell, Mike Rogers….and so many more of you that I could never be able to list everyone. Thank you for your friendship, your support, your criticism, your advice…I’m eternally grateful to have you in my life. I’m thankful for each and every member of the Tenth Amendment Center. You are extremely important to us! (membership info here) Become a member and support the TAC! Proudly supporting our mission – The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses – is one of the best things you can do to help us expand our work. You help us reach – and teach – more people that the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers delegated to it in the constitution…and nothing more. I’m thankful for my friends Angelus, Nickole, and Brian here in Los Angeles. No matter how much or how little I see you over

by Michael Boldin EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 22 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find the show on iTunes at this link. ***** The White House is excited to hear that Obamacare – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – is going to be heard by the Supreme Court. In a statement, a spokesman said – “We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.” The sad fact of the matter is this – any president could sign virtually any law and make pretty much the same statement because the Supreme Court almost never strikes down anything as unconstitutional. And, I might be making an understatement, because from 1937 to 1995, the Supremes didn’t strike down a single federal law as unconstitutional. Not one in nearly sixty years. There have been a few since then, but they’re very few and quite far between. Bottom line? When it comes to limiting federal power, the Supreme Court is NOT to be trusted. Not only have they utterly failed to uphold the constitution, it’s not really in their interest either. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warned us that if the federal government – which includes the federal courts – ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of their own powers, those powers would always grow, regardless of protests, elections, and even lawsuits. So while I’m happy to hear that the Supreme Court is now going to hear the health care case – primarily because we’ll finally see this courtroom drama over with – I have absolutely no expectations that the unelected, unaccountable, politically-connected lawyers that make up the court will side with the Constitution over federal power. I don’t buy lottery tickets either – because I know I’m not going to win and buying them just supports a monopoly on power that shouldn’t exist. But, that’ another discussion altogether! THE PRINCIPLE Last week, we celebrated the anniversary of the adoption of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. In these resolutions, Thomas Jefferson laid the groundwork for the principle nullification, which we define as any act or set of acts which ends up rendering a particular federal law null and void, or unenforceable within that state. The short of the Jeffersonian view is this – the federal government cannot be trusted to limit its own power, so the people and the states, having created that federal government in the first place, not only have an interest and a role in limiting federal power, but it’s their duty. James Madison and even Daniel Webster were on board with the idea of nullification too – or as they called it, interposition. Madison told us in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 that in the case of a dangerous exercise of unconstitutional powers, “the states are duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.” And Webster, often cast as a great opponent to nullification, said this in his famous speech opposing military conscription: “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist” Jefferson, Madison, Webster – and many others. I’m sold on the idea. Hope you are too. And better yet, these actions work. Twenty-five states refused to comply with the Real ID Act of 2005, and while it sits on the books as “law” in Congress and has never been challenged in court, it remains null and void in most of the country. Fifteen states have rejected the notion that the federal government can ban a plant grown and sold within their own state – and while the feds still try to assert their supremacy from time to time, the long-term result is that they’re losing big time. THE NEXT STEP Last year, in preparation for the Supreme Court eventually holding up Obamacare as “constitutional,” the Tenth Amendment Center drafted state-level legislation to reject the notion of not just health insurance mandates from the federal government, but the very core idea that the federal government is authorized to be in the health care industry at all. The TAC’s Federal Health Care Nullification Act declares that, “the federal law known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United Stat

by Michael Boldin EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 21 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find the show on iTunes at this link. ***** 213 years ago, on November 10th, something really important happened. In fact, it was so important that if there ARE going to be federal holidays at all, this should definitely be one. But it’s not. We’ve already got loads of federal holidays to choose from. Some of them are worthy of our attention, and some of them not. On July 4th, there’s independence from King George’s England. On the first Monday in September, there’s a holiday that was dedicated to the “social and economic achievements of American workers.” We celebrate all American presidents, give thanks for the autumn harvest, and more. When there’s no federally-sanctioned holiday to call upon, people around the country celebrate all kinds of other stuff. And activists across the political spectrum often pick “important” dates to schedule events to bring attention to their cause. We’ve seen protests on Tax Day, May Day, Earth Day, the 5th of November, and more. But nowhere to be found on these great lists of “federal holidays” or “protest days” is a celebration of one of the greatest political maxims in American history – that when the federal government does things it’s not supposed to do, you are not bound to obey them. JEFFERSON, KENTUCKY-STYLE Most Americans know that Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of “The Declaration of Independence.” Yet few of them have ever even heard of another document that I would say might be the second most important one he ever wrote – The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which were adopted by the Kentucky General Assembly on November 10, 1798. Jefferson drafted these resolutions – in secret – while he was serving as vice president. It was written in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts which were passed under the John Adams administration. The acts authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered “dangerous to the peace and safety” of the United States, to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States, and criminalized any speech which might “defame” Congress, the President, or bring either of them into “contempt or disrepute.” Interestingly enough, while it was illegal to, in essence, speak out against the president, congress and the federal government in general, it was not illegal to do so towards the opposition, in this case the sitting vice-president, a Mr. Thomas Jefferson. In response, Jefferson invoked what he considered the bedrock of the constitution, the 10th Amendment – and its strict rule that the federal government was one of limited, delegated powers – and nothing more. Essentially, he argued that by passing and enforcing the Alien and Sedition Acts, the federal government had overstepped its bounds and was exercising powers which were never delegated to it in the Constitution. In other words, he considered the Alien and Sedition Acts to be acts of usurpation. VOID AND OF NO FORCE What did Jefferson have to say? Here’s a few snippets that, in my opinion, sum up his views quite well: the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force Jefferson argued that if the federal government were allowed to hold a monopoly on determining what its own powers were, we would have no right to be surprised when it kept discovering new ones – as it does so often today. USURPATION! Want to know where the feds get the power they do? They get it from themselves, not the Constitution. And they’ve been doing this for a long long time. When FDR told starving farmers they couldn’t grow more wheat to consume on their own property, the federal government was assuming undelegated powers. When Richard Nixon founded the EPA with an unconstitutional executive order, he was doing the same. When Ronald Reagan ramped up the war on drugs, this was also an exercise of powers that didn’t belong in Washington DC – they are powers that, according to the 10th Amendment, belong to the states. George Bush gave us the biggest increase of federal control over healthcare in decades, no child left behind, the patriot act, and more. Barack Obama has given us an extension of

by Michael Boldin EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 20 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find the show on iTunes at this link. ******* Concordia res parvae crescunt. It’s a Latin phrase made popular during the revolutionary period that means “small things grow great by concord.” And in a time when politicians claim the power to control nearly every aspect of your life, it’s a phrase that not only packs wisdom, but gives insight on a possible road map to liberty. A QUICK HISTORY LESSON In 1765, the British Parliament passed the Quartering Act, which required the colonies to provide housing and provisions for British soldiers. Like unfunded mandates of today, the Colonies had to pay for it all, too. But, when 1,500 British troops arrived at New York City in 1766, the New York Assembly refused to comply, effectively nullifying the act. The Quartering Act was circumvented in all the colonies other than Pennsylvania. In royal circles, this was yet another sign that the colonies were getting a bit out of control. In 1767, the British Parliament passed a series of five laws known as the Townshend Acts. Their primary purpose was to raise tax revenue and enforce compliance in the colonies. They included the Revenue Act of 1767, the Indemnity Act, the Commissioners of Customs Act, the Vice Admiralty Court Act, and the New York Restraining Act – a punishment for the very public rejection of the Quartering Act a year earlier. The “punishment” given to New York? The Assembly had its legislative powers suspended, effectively leaving all decision-making outside the colony. In other words, they had to self-govern as they were told to, or not self-govern at all. Sound familiar? The colonies responded. And, although the Townshend Acts didn’t have the same, immediate uproar as the Stamp Act had just two years prior, they were hated and resistance soon became widespread. The most influential response to the acts came from John Dickinson, commonly known as “the Penman of the Revolution.” Opposing the new Acts, he wrote a series of twelve essays known as “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.” ADVICE, WISDOM Dickinson’s warning? Don’t concede to new powers just because they appear to be small, or in the case of the Townshend Acts, because the taxes were low, since such concessions always set a dangerous precedent for new and greater powers in the future. In the first of his “Letters,” Dickinson spent time discussing the New York Restraining Act. He wrote: If the parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any of her rights, it may deprive any, or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those, who are powerful by their union. He continued on to say that, in essence, the rightful response at that moment would have been for other colonial assemblies to have at least passed non-binding resolutions informing Parliament that the act was a violation of rights and that it should be repealed. Why? His answer came through clearly at the end of this first letter, where signed off with the Latin phrase, Concordia res parvae crescunt. Small things grow great by concord. ASSUMING TOTAL POWER In many ways, today’s federal government has suspended the legislative power of state assemblies by assuming control over powers never delegated to it in the Constitution. For example, when the Obama administration issued threats to close businesses in California because politicians and bureaucrats in DC think that a particular plant should be illegal, they’ve made their intentions clear. And when the Bush administration told the people of Montana – and elsewhere – that they wouldn’t be able to fly without a new national ID card, they also asserted the power to legislate for the people of that state. The federal government assumes unconstitutional new powers like this almost daily. When Congressional declarations of war are deemed an “anachronism,” Congress simply abdicates its duty on the question of war, and unconstitutionally transfers its power to the executive branch. And when such unconstitutional transfers of power seem unlikely, the executive branch simply redefines war into “kinetic something something” – and then initiates war on its own say-so anyway. When home-grown wheat – never bought or sold, and then consumed on one’s own property – is outside the sphere of federal control, the judicial branch simply redefines what the founders considered “interstate commerce,” and dictates that the federal government controls virtually all commerce, and then e

by Michael Boldin EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 19 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at https://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com. Find the show on iTunes at this link. ******* Peace. What sane person doesn’t want peace – peace in their communities and peace in their lives? Absence of peace, a state of conflict, lowers our chances for a long, healthy, happy and prosperous life. Peace is something we strive for in our workplace, in our family, in our home, and yes – even in politics – although different people obviously have different methods that they believe will attain their desired peace. The Founding Fathers thought that peace was extremely important in political thought. James Madison, the “father of the constitution” considered war, the opposite of peace, to be a great evil when he wrote: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.” Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address also stressed peace when he said: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” Fast forward to today and the political establishment seems to care little for peace. When Madison, Hamilton and Jay wrote the Federalist Papers, the word peace was used 75 times in a series of 85 essays arguing for ratification of the Constitution. But the current Republican establishment almost never uses it. A quick review of recent public statements and the websites of Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich shows that peace must be a low priority, because it almost never enters the conversation. And in the rare cases that any of these republican leaders use the word peace, they never, ever use it in the context that war is a bad idea like James Madison said – an extreme last resort that should be avoided at all costs. And then you have a guy like Rick Santorum, who must revile the founders when he preaches with religious-fervor the message of never-ending wars and entangling alliances. So no, republican party leaders do not favor peace. What about Barack Obama? The Nobel Peace Prize winner just announced the end of the war in Iraq – a full pullout of troops by the end of this year. Does this make him a man of peace? I would say no. In Afghanistan, he’s more than tripled troop levels – to about 100,000 – while waging drone wars over Pakistan, Libya, and elsewhere. Nobel Peace Prizes for people dropping bombs around the world now? This must be some kind of sick joke. Foreign policy – on both the left and right – is not something of peace, but of war. And in a time of crushing debt, James Madison’s warning rings true, if not prophetic. But does peace ONLY apply to foreign policy? Of course not. Government in this country harasses you in nearly every step of your life. While some – if not much – of what they do just might be things you like or agree with, you know that many times you go along with them out of fear….fear of what they’ll do to you if you don’t. This is not a state of peace, this is a state of compliance, and nothing more. When the TSA expands its rights-violating practices to highways around Tennessee, you aren’t given an option. You are told to comply, or else. Is this a state of peace? Is it peace when a cancer patient in California has her home invaded by federal agents because the plant she chooses to grow and consume at home is not approved by politicians and bureaucrats in DC? Is it peace when armed federal agents raid local businesses because they don’t approve of the type of milk they sell, or the wood they use for musical instruments, or a host of other regulations designed to “protect” you – whether you want them to or not? Is it peaceful to tell someone they have to purchase a healthcare plan or face a penalty? To accept the notion that government has the power to spy on just about anyone without a warrant? To force you to pay taxes under threat of imprisonment to bail out crooked corporations that have been ripping you off? I charge that the political establishment hates peace. They recognize that peace is the greatest roadblock to all their goals, and at every turn possible they issue threats while they sow disharmony, fear and conflict. Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion! They can only get away with this as long as their message of hate and fear rings true with you. As long as you hate enemies – real or imagined – they will use your hatred to clamp

by Michael Boldin EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 17 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at https://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com. Find the show on iTunes at this link. ******* In a recent interview with a reporter from the BBC, I was asked – “Is the Tenth Amendment Center affiliated with the Tea Party movement?” My answer?  “Weâ€re affiliated with the Constitution.  When people in the Tea Party take proper constitutional positions, we applaud them.  When they donâ€t, we educate – or when needed – we blast them.” The reporter seemed a little stunned.  He was given my contact info as someone who could help him put together “viewpoints from the Tea Party” on some recent economic issues.  He researched our website and seemed certain that the Tenth Amendment Center was a tea party group.  He pretty much asked me, “are you sure – what is it, are you with the Tea Party or not?” My response was the same.  The only thing that the Tenth Amendment Center is “with” is the constitution.  And furthermore, since our organization was founded in 2006, a few years before the Tea Party explosion, shouldnâ€t the question be the other way around? The fact of the matter is this – we work with Tea Party groups all the time.  Many have sponsored our Nullify Now! events around the country, and many others reach out to us with questions.  And, as long as people from these groups are interested in learning about the Constitution, weâ€ll be more than happy to educate and lead. IMPORTANT QUESTIONS When talking with strict constitutionalists, Iâ€m often asked – “Do you think it might be a bad idea to participate in events with the Tea Party groups?  People might think you support all their goals, and many of them take positions that are totally repugnant to the principles of the Constitution.” To verify that view – and the concern – you donâ€t need to look any further than tea party leaders like Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain. Bachmann proudly voted to extend the Patriot Act – a wildly unconstitutional act that Judge Andrew Napolitano called the “most hateful piece of legislation” in over 200 years.  She regularly twists the Constitutionâ€s meaning by claiming that the federal government has control over health care in the states.  She refers to Mitt Romneyâ€s awful health care mandate as “unconstitutional” instead of a “bad idea.”  Is she proposing that the federal government go in and stop Massachusetts from making their own decisions in this area? Her house vote against letting states make their own choices on marijuana might be an indicator of her view of the constitution and centralized decision-making.  And no, itâ€s not good. Herman Cain is no better.  He supported the TARP bailouts that took money from you and gave it to politically-connected corporations.  He considers the Patriot Act “about 90% right on.”  And, this week’s republican debate, while praising the inflationist Alan Greenspan, he lied about his opposition to an audit of the federal reserve.  Even worse, just look at his website.  In reviewing his positions on the issues, he doesnâ€t name a single program or department that would be completely eliminated.  Even Obamacare would be repealed, but “replaced” with something else.  No mention of the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in the health care industry at all. On ten major national issues covered on his website, the word “constitution” isnâ€t mentioned even once.  Not one single time does Hermain Cain say that a program, act, or department is unconstitutional.  With just thirty powers delegated to the federal government in the constitution, he has plenty to choose from.   If the word Constitution is off-limits to this guy, is he even interested in it? So, no, with bad constitutional positions like these – and many others – I donâ€t consider the Tenth Amendment Center as part of the tea party.  We are more than happy to work with and educate Tea Party leaders and activists as long as theyâ€re willing, though. THE OTHER SIDE? In recent days, Iâ€ve been hearing the same kind of questions – “donâ€t you think itâ€s a bad idea to be involved with these people?” – but directed towards a different group of protesters, the Occupy Wall Street groups.  Like the Tea Partyâ€s general consensus that government power is too big and taxes are too high – which I agree with – I find myself also opposing some of the things these new protesters appear to oppose.  Wealth redistribution to the rich?  Happens every day, and itâ€s not good.  Bailouts to banks and corporations?  Unconstitutional and economically destructive. The best way to sum up what Iâ€ve seen from them so far was a sign

by Michael Boldin EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 16 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at https://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com. Find the show on iTunes at this link. ******* Iâ€ve got news for you…some good and some bad. Letâ€s start out with the bad news first. The constitution as the founders gave it to us is dead. Government in this country is nowhere close to what the founders created in the Constitution. It is nowhere close to what the people of the several states ratified and approved. The Constitution is not being followed in Washington DC, and it hasn’t been for a long time. While itâ€s not supposed to be a “living breathing document,” that’s how it has been functioning for many decades. As Kevin Gutzman, constitutional expert and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, has said, those who would give us a “living” Constitution are actually giving us a dead one, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power. On top of that, itâ€s going to be tough to turn this mess around. Why? Because most everything you have been taught about the constitution is wrong. I, like most people, went to a government run school for many years. I also spent time in a government-approved private school for a number of years as well. What do these both have in common? They both teach students with government-approved textbooks….government-approved by a government that hasn’t followed the constitution for ages. So what should that tell you? Throw out everything, and I mean everything, you learned about the Constitution, and start over. Thatâ€s why Rob Natelsonâ€s book, The Original Constitution, is so important. This is first book EVER to explain the legal force of the entire U.S. Constitution as it stood in December, 1791, right after adoption of the Bill of Rights. And, it will help you unlearn the mess that the government has forced upon you. LOOKING BRIGHTER That leads me to the good news. The Constitution is, believe it or not, extremely popular! And this gives me a glimmer of hope. How do I know this? For everything the government does, when a constitutional question arises, politicians and pundits alike ALL try to find a way to argue that their favorite programs are “constitutional”. They seem to reach for the worst, most obvious nonsense to back up their laws rather than just admit the opposite. How many times have you heard Obama or Bush say something like this….”look, we know this action isn’t constitutional, but we need to do it anyway. The constitution is an old tired document, and we need to get with the times….so let’s get on track America, get on board, and forget that constitution thing. This new way is going to be much better!” I’m going with zero. Iâ€ve also never heard Sean Hannity, or Keith Olberman, or Rush Limbaugh, the New York Times, or anyone for that matter..making such a claim about programs they support. No, no one ever supports a federal act AND takes a position that itâ€s unconstitutional at the same time. Why? Because they know people would flip out. Average people all over the country want government to follow the rules given to it…theyâ€ve just never been taught what those rules actually are. THE CONSTITUTIONâ€S FAULT? When talking with liberty activists, Iâ€m often asked, “why should this matter, the constitution obviously didnâ€t work, so whatâ€s the point in going back two centuries to a failed document?” Failed document? How does a document fail? – is what I generally respond with. Invariably, someone will quote the famed individualist, Lysander Spooner, who once said, “whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” Problem with this, though, is that Spooner was wrong. Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion! The Constitution doesnâ€t apply to you. It doesnâ€t apply to me. It doesnâ€t apply to any person at all. Itâ€s a document that lays out the rules for the federal government, and in a few instances, rules for state governments. But documents donâ€t enforce themselves. It takes you to understand what those rules are, and it takes you refusing to go along with anything outside of those Constitutional limits. Thatâ€s how documents are enforced. If you want to understand why liberty is being flushed down the toilet, and at the same time, if you want to understand how to turn things around, I have one simple suggestion for you. Look in a mirror. Because liberty begins – and ends – with you. The post News Flash: The Constitution is Dead appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Michael Boldin EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 15 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at https://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com. Find the show on iTunes at this link. ******* Yesterday, a long-time commenter on the TenthAmendmentCenter.com website had this to say: “Being a purist is generally another way of saying being a loser in a large Federation.” This was in regards to the presidential candidacy and foreign policy views of Ron Paul. The idea being that since Paul’s foreign policy ideas were, according to our commenter, far out of the current mainstream of republican voters, that Paul needed to shift his positions to ensure the potential for being a winner. When I respond here, I’m certainly not limiting my viewpoints to the candidacy of Ron Paul, to viewpoints on foreign policy, or anything else for that matter. Instead, I think this applies to everything politically. Haven’t we had enough “winners” in this country? For over a century, we’ve had winners on the left, and winners on the right. And not a single one of them – not one – has followed the constitution as they were supposed to, and as we at the Tenth Amendment Center demand – every issue, every time, no exceptions and no excuses. The 10th Amendment was the exclamation point on the constitution – reinforcing the fact that “We the People” of the several states created the federal government. Not the other way around. And, we created that government to be our agent for certain, enumerated purposes…and nothing more. James Madison – you might have heard his name associated with the moniker “father of the constitution” – put it this way: “The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” Few and defined? Well, depending on how you count it, there’s approximately 30 powers that have been delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, most of which reside in Article I, Section 8. Thirty powers. That’s all. But, if you were somehow able to read through all of the US Code and the Code of Federal Regulations, you would have to go through tens of thousands of pages of federal laws and regulations. And it’s not like presidents have been waging epic battles with Congress over the years, vetoing bill after bill and having those vetoes overridden. Instead, almost nothing gets vetoed. Even Ronald Reagan, the president that many constitutionalists idolize as their champion, only vetoed 39 times in an eight year period. Five vetoes per year? Nah, no thanks. To me, that’s as good as zero. At this point, what should a president do to stand up for the constitution? If we want to err on the side of the constitution, let’s keep it simple. A constitutional president should pretty much veto everything! Take a hike. That’s what a constitutional president would say to Congress on almost everything they pass. And hopefully, this brings me back to my initial point – that it’s not OK to be a kinda-constitutionalist. Or a mostly-constitutionalist. Or what we almost always have, a partisan-constitutionalist. Whether they’re from the left or the right, conservative or liberal – or anywhere in between – all politicians claim to support and follow the constitution. And every now and then, most of them say something right. But, it’s very little and there’s almost no consistency. From both sides we’ve seen opposition to violations of your liberties on some issues, but not on others. We’ve seen opposition to some undeclared, unconstitutional wars, but not on others. We’ve seen support for limiting government actions in some areas, but not in others. And sadly, the support and opposition often changes based on which political party is holding power at a given time. But that’s best left for another conversation. The fact of the matter, though, is this – both sides have allowed, turned a blind eye to, and even actively promoted massive constitutional violations for far too long. Year in and year out, politicians tell us that there’s some kind of emergency, real or pretended, and they need to have new powers to prevent all kinds of horrors and death. Corporate Bailouts, Social Security, Environmental Regulations, the Patriot Act, the Department of Energy, Wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere, the Department of Education, Massive Military Spending, the Department of Energy, Foreign Aid, the War on Drugs, FEMA, the FDA and too much more to list – have all been sold to us on fear. And all of them are unconstitutional. When you allow politicians to bend the rules of the constitution or break them

by Michael Boldin EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 14 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at https://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com. Find the show on iTunes at this link.  Michael will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! in Jacksonville. Get tickets here, or by calling 888-71-TICKETS. ******* Republicans scream and yell about “Obamacare” and how much they oppose what they consider to be the socialist whoâ€s currently the president. In a recent poll, republicans and tea party members were asked if they considered Barack Obama a socialist.  71% said yes, and only 17% said no. This must be a joke, because Republicans are little more than the pot calling the kettle black. So, letâ€s take a look at that – first, with a definition of socialism. Socialism. so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] noun (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. And…. Collectivism. col·lec·tiv·ism  [kuh-lek-tuh-viz-uhm] noun the political principle of centralized social and economic control We all hear from people like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry that theyâ€ll do everything they can to repeal “Obamacare.”  Perry even says heâ€ll use an executive order to get rid of it – an unconstitutional legislative action from the executive branch is obviously no problem for this guy.  But thatâ€s best left for another discussion. So, on principle, republicans oppose centralized control over health care, right?  Wrong.  They love it.  They just happen to dislike this particular social program in the health industry.  In fact, other than the new Affordable Care Act, there really doesnâ€t seem to be any socialist or collectivist programs that Republicans want to get rid of.  And itâ€s time we start calling them out on their inconsistencies, their lies and their grandstanding. Letâ€s start with health care. REPUBLICANS LOVE HEALTH CARE CENTRAL PLANNING Medicare Part D was the biggest expansion of government control over the health care industry in decades.  It was pushed and passed by republicans under George Bush, and most certainly paved the way for further government control under the Obama administration. Not really believing that massive government control of the health industry was the result of this republican plan?  A 2008 report in Politico helps make things a little more clear. The growth of state and federal health care programs — including President Bushâ€s prescription drug plan for seniors — means that today about half of the pharmaceutical market is controlled by government. Half of an entire market – a massive one to say the least – controlled by government?  Nah, thatâ€s not centralized economic control.  Only Obamacare is! But why focus only on the past.  Those were the “bad” republicans, and George Bush was no real “conservative republican.”  Todayâ€s crop is all about the Constitution – and theyâ€re totally opposed to centralized economic control, right? Wrong. In the very same poll where 71% of republicans called Obama a “socialist” – 78% said they wanted to keep Medicare.  Only 12% want to get rid of it. Centralized control over health care?  Republicans LOVE it, and theyâ€re frauds when they say they donâ€t. OTHER PROGRAMS What about your retirement?  Want the government to control it?  Some would say that Social Security is unconstitutional.  Others consider it a Ponzi scheme.  As an aside, I wouldnâ€t – Ponzi schemes are voluntary. On retirement plans, Republicans once again love collectivism.   75% want to keep it and only 17% would like to see it eliminated. Republicans donâ€t like socialism, collectivism – centralized planning and control?  Nonsense. How about education?  Surely republicans are vehemently opposed to federal control – centralized planning and collectivism, that is – over the education of their children, right? Nope. A CNN Poll this month tells us that a whopping 74% of republicans want to keep the Department of Education and its centralized social and economic control over your childrens†education in the hands of the federal government. Only 24% want to see it eliminated. Not even the EPA is on the chopping block for Americaâ€s socialist republicans.  Earlier this year Reuters reported that 61% of republicans opposed abolishing the EPA.  A little glimmer of hope, maybe, but not much.  Still, a large majority of republicans are fully on board with centralized planning on all kinds of social and economic issues. JOBS.  THATâ€S IT! When looking at these numbers and seeing the big picture, I was both surprised, and not surprised at the same time.  I thought to myself, “there HAS to be some central planning and control that republicans donâ

by Michael Boldin EDITOR’S NOTE: Michael made the following rant at the close of Episode 13 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at https://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com. Find the show on iTunes at this link. Michael will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! in Jacksonville. Get tickets here, or by calling 888-71-TICKETS. ******* The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, and every year that date passes by with hardly a sound. Sure, now that itâ€s considered a day of “federal observance” youâ€ll find government schools around the country including it in their lesson plans. But these discussions generally focus on “Constitution Trivia” instead of whatâ€s really important. While it may be good to educate our young on how many years a Senator serves, or how Supreme Court justices are appointed, itâ€s not enough. Seriously lacking in the public discourse is the actual purpose of the Constitution – its underlying principles. The founding generation spent their lives toiling under a tyranny – a government without limits. But, when the Constitution was written, it was done to codify in law that the powers of government would be limited to those which had been delegated to it. The entire system was created under the principle of popular sovereignty – that ‘We the People of the Several States†created the government, and all powers not delegated to it, were retained. But thatâ€s not something youâ€re likely to hear from politicians in Washington DC, political pundits, schools, or just about anywhere else. Itâ€s generally not in their interest, either. If politicians and their backers were promoting such crazy ideas as “originalism” and “limited government” theyâ€d never be able to convince you that they have the power to tell you what kind of health care plan youâ€ll be getting, how big your toilet can be, what kind of plants youâ€re allowed to grow, where youâ€re allowed to exercise your “right” to free speech, whom you can buy and sell from, and even when you must send your children to die for them. MORE OF THE SAME Throughout history, even kings and queens have often failed to survive such acts of hubris; but, in “free” America, the major parties that produce all the presidents continue to receive approval through tens of millions of votes. And where has that gotten people? Well, letâ€s take a look at some major issues. If you were opposed to war in the Bush administration, youâ€ve still got the same wars and threats of wars under Obama. If you were opposed to national health care under Clinton, you got a massive expansion of government health care under George Bush, which laid the groundwork for an even bigger expansion under Obama. If you didnâ€t like the federal government passing the Patriot Act without even reading it, youâ€re still getting the same failure to read today. On the other hand, if you liked the Bush bailouts, youâ€ve gotta love the ones that Obama has given you! No matter what side of the political aisle you sit on, the federal government is not your friend. Itâ€s not a friend to the Constitution, and itâ€s certainly no friend to your liberty. For years and years…and years, people have yelled “vote the bums out!” “Call Congress now!” “March on DC!” But, in the long run, little to none of this actually works. If you oppose this national health care plan, theyâ€ll give you that one. If you oppose one war, youâ€ll get another one. If you oppose todayâ€s bailout, theyâ€ll find a different one tomorrow. In Studio at Tenther Radio A DIFFERENT STRATEGY Decade in and decade out, the government keeps growing, and your liberty keeps shrinking. And it doesnâ€t matter if the person in charge is named Obama, or Bush, or Reagan, or Clinton. The bottom line? Looking to the federal government – whether itâ€s though elections, or protests, or lawsuits, or rallies – is a failed strategy. Going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal government doesn’t work! Here at the Tenth Amendment Center we’re working towards something different, and we’re thankful to everyone who’s made this organization a reality. Together, we can make a difference. The post Constitution Day is this Saturday! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Add to iTunes by Michael Maharrey The Constitution, when followed as intended by the framers, provides a bulwark against overreaching governmental power. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton wrote those words in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887. Acton was an English historian and political philosopher. He held a deep distrust of governmental power. “The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.” Acton understood what few Americans seem to grasp today; concentrated power poses a grave danger to the liberties of the people. Even the well intentioned can easily slide down the slippery slope toward tyrannical behavior when placed in positions of authority. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.” The founders of the United States understood the dangers of concentrated power all too well. They lived with it and spilled blood to end it. As a result, they endeavored to create a government, framed by the Constitution, with limited power. Further, they divided those powers among three branches, creating a series of checks and balances. The founder’s fears were quickly proved valid. The Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798, just 11 years after adoption of the Constitution, made it clear that federal power would tend to expand. The problem stems from a tendency of those in power to stretch and pull on limits in order to satisfy their own ends. Each of us believe our ideas best. And while we may recoil at the notion of others imposing their ideas on us, we seldom fail to rationalize that our own program possesses such overriding benefit that a little coercion would be OK in that particular case. It’s for their own good, after all, we reason. The recently passed federal health care legislation provides a vivid case in point. Most recognize the problems in our health care system. Most agree that changes are necessary. But to legitimize the huge federal power grab progressives deem necessary to fix the problem, proponents must bastardize the commerce and the general welfare clauses to an extent that virtually grants the federal government limitless power. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, a response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, James Madison warns of the dangers of expanding phrases beyond their original intent and meaning. The General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy. In other words, the Constitution must mean what it means. Constitutional interpretation is not as mysterious and complicated as many would like to make it. The founders, framers and ratifiers wrote volumes on the subject, revealing not only the meaning of each article, but the principles underlying the document itself. Instead of interpreting the Constitution through the lens of a progressive “living breathing” framework, which quickly devolves into pragmatic justification for expanding powers, we must understand the Constitution through the eyes of its creators. Otherwise, the document loses all real meaning, ripping down the bulwark protecting our liberties. Jefferson summed it up nicely. “On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” The post How should we interpret the Constitution? appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Editor’s note: Barack Obama and other supporters of unlimited federal power would like us to believe that we can’t uncover the Constitution’s original meaning. In essence, they’re telling us that we don’t have a Constitution at all. Rob Natelson’s new book, The Original Constitution, shows us that such a view is little more than….a crock. The following is the book’s preface, reprinted here with permission from the author. Audio version read by Jeff Riggenbach. Add to iTunes Get the New Book Today! It is Thursday, December 22, 1791. You live in Philadelphia, currently serving as the temporary capital of the newly-created United States of America. It has been only fifteen years since Independence was declared, and less than three years since the federal government began functioning under the United States Constitution. For a long time, it had been touch-and-go as to whether the Constitution would be ratified at all. Two states initially refused to agree, and of the remainder five had approved the document only after the Constitutionâ€s supporters and moderate opponents had cut a political deal calling for a Bill of Rights. As soon as the new Congress met, two of the most important states, Virginia and New York, petitioned for a new convention to re-write the Constitution. Only after Congress had approved the Bill of Rights did Virginia and New York abandon their petitions and only then did the last two hold-outs, North Carolina and Rhode Island, join the union. The fourteenth state, Vermont, came in at the beginning of 1791. Earlier on this day, you learned that the Bill of Rights had finally been ratified on December 15. So now, you reflect, the union is reasonably secure, evening is approaching, and your work day is done—and you are on a Philadelphia street corner with nothing particular to do. The weather is chilly and blustery, but there is a cure for that: A warm punch in a cozy tavern. You enter the tavern and look around for a seat. The place is nearly full. But there is bench space at a long wooden table at one side of the room. Sitting around the table are men you recognize— eminently respectable men— some of Philadelphiaâ€s leading judges and lawyers. They are deep in debate about an abstruse point of real property law. Not being a lawyer yourself, you do not think of that sort of discussion as the key to a good time. But there are no other seats. You slip into the empty chair and order your punch while the discussion swirls around your head. Eventually, you decide to turn the conversation elsewhere. You give a little cough. The lawyers had barely noticed you, but now turn they their heads and break off the debate. “I regret that I feel unqualified to comment on your subject,” you say. “But, gentlemen, you know I am not a lawyer. May I suggest another topic?” They seem interested. The prior discussion had been wearing thin anyway. “You no doubt have observed,” you continue, “that ten new constitutional amendments were proclaimed last week.” “Yes,” responds one of your listeners. (You know him as a distinguished judge.) “They should work some change upon the system.” “That is exactly what I wished to pursue,” you add. “What is that system? And what change does the Bill of Rights effect upon it?” The lawyers look at each other. One of them—he is particularly known as an expert in wills and fiduciary trusts—smiles. “Well, my good man, that is an expansive inquiry whose response might consume some time. Are you otherwise engaged for the next few hours? ” The others laugh. But you press your question. It is only seven oâ€clock, your spouse has gone to Carlyle to visit relatives and you are not “otherwise engaged.” Neither are you particularly eager to leave the warm tavern. “I am at complete leisure,” you respond. “Please, say on.” The lawyers glance at each other. “Well, why not?” asks one. “As it happens, we are not engaged either. The courts are closed tomorrow, and our wives are enjoying the comfort of each otherâ€s society. I dare say they have no present need of us!” More laughter. “I think I can speak for my learned colleagues here,” the trust attorney interjects, “when I tell you that there is no topic on which we would rather discourse that our new Constitution. We have exchanged views on this subject before, and we differ on the small points. But I flatter myself that we are in accord on the great ones.” You are a bit amused at how easy it is to induce lawyers to talk. You draw deep from the warm punch, and sit back, and listen . . . What would those lawyers tell you that evening? What would have been their understanding of the scope of the new federal government and its powers? What would they relate of the role of the states or of the people? What, in other words, was the actual legal force of our Constitution as lawyers and intelligent lay persons understood it in 1791? T

[audio:https://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/wp-content/uploads/148_tom_woods_with_lew_rockwell.mp3] Add to iTunes Lew Rockwell interviews Tom Woods, on his new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Thanks to the internet, Americans can learn about such forbidden ideas as the Principles of 1798, when Jefferson and Madison laid out the idea that to give the central government the sole ability to interpret the constitution was the path to tyranny, and that the states have the right and the duty to oppose tyrannical actions by the feds. Regimists try to demonize the idea of nullification, as they attempt to demonize all ideas that undermine centralized power, but that is not scaring libertarians, Tea Party people, and other dissidents. Nullification, decentralization, self-government, self-determination, even secession: the time of these un-PC ideas is here, and the Woods book may be the handbook of the revolution. Websites: https://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ *includes a legislative tracking page https://www.werefuse.com/ *declares the national health care law Unconstitutional https://www.thomasewoods.com/ *Tomâ€s personal web page https://www.lewrockwell.com/ * all the best of the articles here Cross-posted from the Lew Rockwell show The post How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Add to iTunes Lew Rockwell interviews Michael Boldin, founder and head of the Tenth Amendment Center. What is the Tenth Amendment, and why should we care? (“Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. 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.”) Itâ€s a linchpin of the states rights phenomenon that is lighting a prairie fire all across the country. And it is not a “right-wing movement,” despite the MSMâ€s claims. Indeed, its most powerful component is the drive to legalize medical marijuana. (The pro-gun and anti-REAL ID movements are important too, of course). The feds ordered the states to crack down, but they ignored our overlords. And here is a lesson for all of us. Electoral politics, except Ron Paul, tends to be a corrupt sham. Rather than write, call, or fax congressmen or senators, or work to exchange Bum B for Bum A, ignore the federal government as we peacefully resist. That drains its power. Like the Devil, it needs our consent. Websites: Tenth Amendment Center WeRefuse.com cross-posted from LewRockwell.com The post States Revolt Against the Federal Government appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Bryce Shonka Many of us, after years of indoctrination at our government schools, were left with a sense that there is a great government force working hard every day to protect us and look after our best interest. We were told that government standards keep us safe from disease, that government highway regulations keep us safe from car accidents, that federal agencies make sure that the food we eat will be healthy. The result of all of this? Americans everywhere drive more carelessly, do not research what they put on their plate and take medications that leave them sicker, rather than healthier. For government officials, free from the scrutiny of the free market and any sort of competition, they typically have one primary goal once they have obtained their coveted position of power- to retain that power and gain even more. This is a simple fact of human nature, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A great example is the Food and Drug Administration, which after obtaining the confidence of the republicâ€s masses has been responsible for regular introduction of medications that maim and even kill those who trust itâ€s oversight. This is hardly surprising when one considers that many FDA regulators were installed after terms as drug company lobbyists. Likewise, Federal officials entrusted with Americaâ€s food supply have allowed the greatest food experiment in the history of mankind- the use of Genetically Modified crops. The dangers of this veil of protection not only enables Americans to become ignorant, mindless sheep but also allows the growth of power, as recently seen with the Federal forays into finance and medical care. Those who seek the protective hand of big brother pay a high price as they trust their quality of life to a largely self serving group of legislators. If the goal is a better quality of life, the solution is simple: more responsibility and less government involvement. Bryce Shonka [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the California Tenth Amendment Center. He also serves as the Media and Grassroots Director for the National Tenth Amendment Center. He resides in Los Angeles, CA. The post The Great Lie of the Nanny State: Government Works appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Add to iTunes click here to download Sheriff Richard Mack, the former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, talks about how the sheriffs in this country are indeed the ultimate law authority in their respective jurisdictions, how the sheriff has the power and responsiblity to defend his citizens against all enemies – foreign and domestic, how presidents use the IRS as a political hit squad on their opponents, his landmark court case – and supreme court victory – in response to the Clinton administration and the Brady Bill back in the 1990’s, the federal government’s authority being only that which has been delegated to it in the Constitution, how to approach your county sheriff to encourage them to stand up for the Constitution, and more. Mentioned in this Show www.sheriffmack.com The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope Printz v United States Sheriff Mack Video on the Supremacy Clause Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given. The post Sheriff Mack: The County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Add to iTunes click here to download Walter Kirk Wood, professor of history at Alabama State University and expert on the principle of nullification, explains the history of nullification in the American Constitutional tradition, a federal system as a check on arbitrary, centralized power, Imperium in Imperio and the American colonies, the three prominent nullification movements in early American history, James Madison’s “report of 1800,” Madison as the father of nullification and his notes on the Constitutional Convention, the extended-republic of the anti-federalists, how nullification acts as a check on central power and is inherent in a federal system, how nullification was virtually lost for over a century, its return in recent history, America’s first freedom as freedom from government, and more. Mentioned in this Show Nullification: A Constitutional History (vol 1) Nullification: A Constitutional History (vol 2) Madison’s Notes On the Constitutional Convention of 1787 Republic of Letters: Jefferson and Madison Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 Virginia Resolution of 1798 NullificationHistory.com Current Nullification Efforts Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given. The post Kirk Wood: Nullification, A Constitutional History appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Add to iTunes Kevin Gutzman, best-selling author and expert on American Constitutional history, discusses the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine, how the doctrine has given us government by judiciary instead of government by representation, the Due Process clause, Substantive Protections vs. Due Procedure, the original intent of the 14th Amendment, how the courts changed that meaning over the ensuing five decades, the Bill of Rights as a limitation on the power of Congress, how the incorporation doctrine has turned the principles of federalism on its head, representative government vs. government by “experts” Privileges or Immunities and The Slaughter-House Cases, rights of State citizenship, how James Madison warned that those in government would tend to use and expand power, some of the greatest violations of the Constitution under the doctrine of incorporation, why federalism and decentralization is a better system to secure liberty, and more. Mentioned in this Show KevinGutzman.com The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution Who Killed the Constitution Virginia’s American Revolution Slaughter-House Cases Lawrence v Texas The post Kevin Gutzman: Freedom vs the Courts appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Rob Natelson, recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, offers a lesson on the general Welfare clause of the United States Constitution. He discusses the original meaning of the words themselves, the meaning of general welfare in the preamble, the original meaning and understanding of the clause, the taxing clause, the Hamiltonian vs the Madisonian view, anti-federalist concerns, modern interpretations, court cases which have turned its meaning upside down, practical reasons for a limiting view of the clause and the Constitution as a whole, and more. Add to iTunes Mentioned in this Show Federalist #41 United States v Butler Korematsu v. United States More from Rob Natelson: Are Campaign Finance Laws Constitutional? Is ObamaCare Constitutional? Claiming Almost Everything is “Commerce” The post Podcast: A Lesson on the General Welfare Clause appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan have already introduced similar legislation, and potentially, 15 other states will do so in the 2010 legislative session. But hereâ€s something fundamentally important that NYT writer Monica Davey claims in her article: …the Constitutionâ€s supremacy clause ordinarily allows federal law to, in essence, trump a state law that conflicts with it… A best, this is a highly-misleading statement. There are two main points to make here: 1. The “supremacy clause” does not allow federal law to trump state law in all situations, or even “ordinarily” as Davey claims. It only does so when both laws are in pursuance of a power that has been delegated to the federal government by “We the People.” – in the Constitution. 2. We know that this is the case because Monicaâ€s version of the supremacy clause was actually proposed by leading founders – and rejected. When the Constitution was being drafted, James Madison and others proposed what came to be known as the “Virginia Plan.” A major part of this plan was to give the congress a veto over state laws. It was defeated. That means, in plain English, the founders considered this idea, and said no. And Davey is irrefutably wrong in her claim. So we know from this short lesson that the supremacy clause did not authorize the power that Davey is claiming. In reality, things are pretty much the other way around. The biggest Constitutional problems that actually exist in this country are those times when the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it by “We the People.” And that happens far more often than not. Unfortunately, though, not enough people know this important history of the Virginia Plan, and this basic premise of the Constitution, so theyâ€re easily swayed by patently false statements by people like Davey and the New York Times. The post Getting the Supremacy Clause Wrong appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Rob Natelson Effectively defending American federalism requires us to remember that federalism was not created by the states – nor was it created for state benefit. Federalism was fashioned by the American people – for the benefit of individuals and of the people as a whole. Justice Sandra Day Oâ€Connor, possibly the most eminent defender of the Tenth Amendment to sit on the modern Supreme Court, put it this way: The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” CLICK HERE TO READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE The post Getting the 10th Amendment Right appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Josh Eboch Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, no single ideological camp could wield sufficient power to impose a set of beliefs on the entire country. Which was exactly the point of our federalist system, and of the 10th Amendment. Beyond specific, enumerated federal powers, an infinite number of issues were intentionally left to the authority of the people through their state governments. And it is to the states that liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians must address all questions extending beyond the constitutional purview of federal authority. Click Here to Read the Full Article The post Federalism, Freedom and the Constitution appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Rob Natelson – original article posted 09-17-09 Speaker Nancy Pelosi has issued a press release in which she purports to rebut those of us who have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of some health care reform plans. Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) claims: “The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states… or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. (bolded in original). For several reasons, this is a highly misleading statement. First, it fails to mention a concern expressed by many constitutional scholars, including those on the Left: Substantive due process. “Substantive due process” is the doctrine by which the Supreme Court strikes down laws it deems unacceptably interfere with personal privacy or autonomy. Health care laws that, for example, limit oneâ€s ability to fund and control oneâ€s own health care could well run afoul of substantive due process rules. Second, the statement fails to mention that, while the Supreme Court has upheld many delegations of power from Congress to executive branch agencies, the Court has affirmed repeatedly that there are limits. Some health care proposals involve wider delegations of authority than any since the New Dealâ€s National Reconstruction Adminisration (NRA) — which was invalidated by a unanimous Court. Third, the Pelosi release disregards the fact that on several occasions the modern Supreme Court has struck down overreaching federal legislation, supposedly adopted under the Commerce Power. Also, on several occasions, the Court has interpreted congressional acts narrowly to avoid constitutional conflicts. Fourth: Pelosi (or her speechwriter) clearly misstate the current Supreme Courtâ€s test for laws under the Constitutionâ€s Commerce Power. The statement that Congress can regulate “activities that have an effect on interstate commerce” should be that Congress can regulate “economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Non-economic activities, such as some health care decisions, would have to meet a much stricter test. This may seem to be a minor mistake, but for legal purposes it is an important one, and one that, for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, is not easily excusable. Finally, Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) commits the mistake of failing to look at wider judicial trends. One of these trends is the long-term movement by the Supreme Court toward interpreting the Constitution according to its real meaning – the original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers. And virtually no knowledgeable person thinks government health care is constitutional under that standard. Rob Natelson is Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution. The post Nancy Pelosi: Wrong on Health Care appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Michael Boldin This year, seven states have passed sovereignty resolutions under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Two states passed laws nullifying some federal firearms regulations. Thirteen states now have Medical Marijuana laws in direct opposition to federal laws. And three states are considering constitutional amendments allowing residents to effectively opt-out of any future national health care plan. What does this have to do with September 17th, Constitution Day? everything. The Constitution of the United States was a revolutionary document. “Before it, no government in history had seen its duties and restrictions so clearly and carefully defined” When it was being considered for ratification, there was strong opposition from famous American figures that included George Mason and Patrick Henry. “One major reason for this was a fear of too much power The founding generation spent their lives toiling under a tyranny – a government without limits. When the Constitution was written, it was done to limit the power of government. It was created under the principle of popular sovereignty – that ‘We the People of the Several States’ created the government, and all powers not delegated to it, were retained.” Depending on how you count them, the People delegated approximately 35 powers to the federal government and not included in those powers are national health care, the creation of free speech zones, federal gun regulations, the war on drugs, and more. The Constitution is not exclusively for either the left or the right. It established rules for limiting the power of government so your liberty would have a better chance of success. The founders created a system of government where the most important and most difficult issues would be kept close to home, and that’s just the opposite of how things are today. Over the years, wise men and women warned us that the Constitution would never enforce itself. Its high time that people start recognizing this as fact. No amount of calling or voting or litigating or hoping will get federal politicians to restrict their own power. That’s why we at TenthAmendmentCenter.com created the 10-4 Pledge so people can find candidates for office who believe in the strict limitations on power that the Constitution stands for. The 10-4 Pledge is a set of 10 affirmations and 10 promises for legislators and candidates. Included in the pledge is an affirmation that “All just political authority is derived from the People,” and a promise that elected officials will always vote “in favor of the Constitution of the United States. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.” Already, several prominent candidates have affirmed these positions as early-signers of the pledge, including Randy Brogdon for Governor of Oklahoma, Adam Kokesh for US House in New Mexico, and Brandon Creighton from the Texas House of Representatives and author of HCR-50 – the Texas Sovereignty Resolution. So whether youre on the left, or on the right, or even somewhere in the middle, the path to freedom, the path to your political goals lies not in Washington D.C. Instead, it lies in Madison, and Jefferson (City), and other state capitols around the country. So this Constitution Day take a new pledge. Ignore and resist the federal overnment. Its as worthless as it is dangerous. Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given. The post The 10-4 Pledge for the Constitution appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Matthew Shea, State Representative in Washington’s 4th District discusses HJM4009 for sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, putting the federal government on notice, the alarming attempts of the federal government to take over the national guard , the fact that Congress has not followed the constitution’s requirement for a declaration of war since WWII, plans for nullification efforts in 2010, the Sheriff’s First law, how left and right can come together to support the Constitution, and more. Mentioned in this episode: HJM4009 Rep Shea’s Legislative Page Bring the Guard Home Sign up for Rep Shea’s Newsletter Grassroots Central State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee Find Your WA State Legislator The post Matthew Shea: Standing up for the Constitution appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Add to iTunes Rob Natelson, recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, and Professor of Constitutional Law, Legal History, and Advanced Constitutional Law at the University of Montana School of Law talks about how the Supreme Court allowed the Federal Government in the late 1930s to drastically change the way the US Constitution is interpreted, how the Court initially tried to hold a line against FDRs expansion of power but changed position even before the infamous court-packing scheme, how the Commerce and Taxing powers were almost turned upside down,  the Necessary and Proper clause and incidental powers, the false claim that the Supreme Court is conservative, how bad precedent leads to more bad court rulings, state elections as critical for Constitutional activists, and more. Editor’s Note: Professor Natelson notes one error in the podcast:  He should have given Justice Breyerâ€s first name as “Stephen.” Mentioned in this Show: United States v Darby Lumber Wickard v Filburn The Heritage Guide to the Constitution Robâ€s Page at the University of Montana Scholarship of the Original Understanding of the Constitution More from Rob Natelson: Is ObamaCare Constitutional? Claiming Almost Everything is “Commerce” The New King George It’s the People’s Right! Podcast: Understanding Federalism The post Rob Natelson: A Constitutional Coup d’etat appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Add to iTunes by Michael Boldin The following was a prepared statement for the 10th Amendment Forum in Orlando, FL on 08-22-09 First of all, thank you for allowing me a few moments to be here with you today – itâ€s an honor to be able to speak with you, even if itâ€s from the other side of the country where I am here in Los Angeles, California. As the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, Iâ€m often asked – why the Tenth Amendment? Why do we need it? And I truly believe thatâ€s just what people like you and I were asking back in the time when this country was founded, too. But, the answer isnâ€t complex. It isnâ€t difficult. Itâ€s simple and itâ€s easy to understand. The People of the day, the Founding Generation, like so many of us today, recognized that a government of strictly limited powers is the only one that has a chance of protecting our liberty – and thatâ€s just the kind of government that the People created when they ratified the Constitution so many years ago. They did this because they knew through their own life experience, that a government without limits is a tyranny. The 10th Amendment was ratified as an exclamation point on the Constitution – and it lays out in plain English that our federal government is to be one of limited, enumerated powers – not the nearly unlimited, unchecked one that it has become today. It truly is our modern line in the sand. On one side, we have those who believe in limiting the power of politicians, and on the other are those that trust the government to do everything. The 10th Amendment is the safety valve that makes it clear, especially in conjunction with the 9th, that it was The People who created the federal government to be our agent for certain enumerated purposes…….and nothing more. The federal government didnâ€t create itself – and the state governments didnâ€t create it either. It was The People who created the federal government, and it is the People who are sovereign in the American system. This couldnâ€t have been more clearly stated than it was in the Federalist Papers, #22. And hereâ€s the quote: “The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” And that wasnâ€t Madison or Jay. It was the man who at the time was seen as the greatest believer in centralized power, Alexander Hamilton. So, back then, even the great centralizer recognized that power comes from the People. And thatâ€s the way it was at the beginning – and thatâ€s the way it is today. So only when “We the People” actually regain that power over the government that is supposed to be our agent – only then will we ever see liberty and prosperity flourish in this country. And, I believe that the path to this is not in Washington D.C. Itâ€s not in asking federal politicians to let us exercise our rights, or hoping that federal judges will give us permission to exercise our rights. But instead, the path is in Tallahassee and state capitols around the country. Courageous State legislators – like your own Carey Baker and Scott Plakon – are calling on the Jeffersonian tradition of nullification to resist unconstitutional federal laws. When a state “nullifies” a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or “non-effective,” within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, itâ€s actually not a law as far as that state is concerned. We see this principle being raised in opposition to national ID cards, federal gun regulations and even proposed national health care plans. Starting in 2007, there was a state-level resistance to the federal government that rose up in a way that this country hasnâ€t seen since the mid-19th century. Approximately two dozen states simply refused to comply with federal law. They refused to implement the Bush era Real ID act.  And guess what? Today itâ€s gone without even needing congress to repeal it. So whatâ€s the lesson? Through nullification, we can effectively resist DC and whatever they try to shove down our throats. This year, 26 states have seen a firearms freedom act introduced, and already two states have already made them law – thatâ€s Montana and Tennessee. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect to see ten states introduce state constitutional amendments which would effectively ban a forced national health care plan – and your state of Florida is leading the way. Thereâ€s plenty of outrage these days, and that can be seen by the activism at town hall meetings around the country. But think of it this way – If, instead of making demands on federal politicians who donâ€t listen to us anyway, all this energy was instead focused on state governments, weâ€d probably see 10 or 20 health nullification bills in states already. And Obamaâ€s health c

Add to iTunes Mark Edge, co-host of the syndicated radio show Free Talk Live, joins us to talk about the Free State Project in New Hampshire as decentralization in practice, moving towards smaller government on a state level, spreading liberty around the country by example, the insanity of violent response to activists by the federal government, the people of New Hampshire as having a streak of individualism and resistance to government encroachments, the state legislature in New Hampshire, liberty-loving lobbyists, the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, Free Talk Live’s growing syndication, and more. Mentioned in this Show: Free State Project Free Talk Live Ridley Report Free Keene New Hampshire Liberty Alliance The post Mark Edge: Activism in the Free State appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Add to iTunes Thomas J. DiLorenzo, published author and senior fellow at the Mises Institute, discusses the principle of nullification as a devolution of power away from the central government into the hands of the state or the people, Thomas Jefferson and the Kentucky Resolves as resistance to the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, ways nullification was put into practice all across the Union in the early days of the Republic, Andrew Jackson and resistance to the bank of the United States, the “Tariff of Abominations,” nullification of the fugitive slave act, the slander of racism that proponents of big government often throw out at supporters of decentralization, secession as the ultimate brake on government, the power and control of the IRS and the Federal Reserve, the Second Vermont Republic, and the progression of dictatorial powers through the Bush and Obama administrations. Mentioned in this Show: Hamilton’s Curse Nullification, A Constitutional History The Real Lincoln How Capitalism Saved America Mises.org LewRockwell.com Kentucky Resolutions Virginia Resolution Second Vermont Republic Free State Project The post Thomas J. DiLorenzo: Nullification appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Add to iTunes Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML – the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws discusses the unconstitutional nature of the war on marijuana, the history of marijuana prohibition in the U.S., the commerce clause as a federal excuse to regulate and prohibit various activities, 13 states that are directly resisting unconstitutional federal laws, a rare 10th amendment victory in the Supreme Court, the growth of taxes on marijuana into outright federal control and prohibition, a state-level strategy to rein in the federal government, and his new book, Marijuana is Safer – So Why are We Driving People to Drink? Mentioned in this Show: NORML LewRockwell.com AlterNet.org The Hill Marijuana is Safer The post Paul Armentano: The Unconstitutional War on Pot appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Add to iTunes Charles Key, State Representative from Oklahoma’s 90th District, discusses Oklahoma’s 10th Amendment Resolution, the Constitution and limits on the federal government’s power, the long-standing abuses of the constitution no matter which administration or party is in power, bailouts and real id as unconstitutional, why it’s urgent to act now, the OK gubernatorial campaign, the Firearms Freedom Act, and the constitution – not the federal government – as the source of law in the United States. Mentioned in this Show: Oklahoma Sovereignty Resolution CharlesKey.com @ckey – twitter Facebook Page Randy Brogdon for OK Governor The post Charles Key: A Constitutional Republic appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.