Tom Woods recently put together a list of recommended books, and I thought that this was a great idea for Tenthers as well. His introduction was perfect, it fits here as well:

People often ask me what books they ought to read in order to get quickly up to speed on economics, politics, and history. Here are some suggestions.

If you’re like me, you are annoyed by books that teach you three new things. My time is limited. I like books that are full of things I didn’t know, or ideas I’d never thought of.

The books I recommend below belong in that category. They teach you something new and unexpected on every page. And they are a perfect antidote to the propaganda fed to us in the ideological prison camps where most of us spent our formative years. I list them in no particular order.

Tom, thanks for the great introduction, it applies here as well! So with that, here’s my recommendation list of the top-10 books for Tenthers. I urge you to read them in the order presented. Doing so will almost act like a series of course as you work towards your “Tenther Degree!”

To start, get a great introduction to the Founder’s constitutional thought – and vision with two books. The Founding Fathers’ Guide to the Constitution by Brion McClanahan might be the definitive layman’s handbook on the Constitution. And Kevin Gutzman’s Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is THE book for the layman to overcome the “received wisdom” about what constitutional law is.

For those that want to dig deeper into the original legal meaning of the Constitution, the ultimate book is Rob Natelson’s The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant, published right here at the Tenth Amendment Center. TOC gives you the tools you need to understand the proper role of the federal government and to counter common myths about America’s Founders and the Constitution they gave us.

As Natelson shows so well in The Original Constitution, it’s essential to understand what the constitution meant to those who drafted it (the Framers) and those who approved it (the Ratifiers). St. George Tucker’s 1803 View of the Constitution of the United States was the standard text on the understanding of the document for decades. The importance? Well if this is the book that explained the common public understanding of the constitution at that time, it holds great value for understanding it today.

Once you’ve got a good understanding of the Constitution’s framework is all about, the question almost always remains: What do we do when the Constitution is violated? Tom Woods’ Nullification is the handbook on the topic. It’s filled with all the historical information you need to understand the constitutional basis for the doctrine. And Mike Maharrey’s new book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty, places nullification in a modern context, and even provides some insight on good action steps for you to take today.

At this point, you’re more than half way through. You know more than most on the Constitution and what to do about violations of its limits. Moving forward, is taking a bit of a step back. I think Murray Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty is not only the most information-packed history of America ever written, it’s also in a style that’s extremely engaging. Rothbard had a story-telling knack like few others and you’ll find yourself immersed in the long history of the early days of America.

Next, you’ll want to dive head-first into Kevin Gutzman’s James Madison and the Making of America. This book isn’t just the best-written biography on the 4th president, it’s much more Read it to find out why. You won’t be disappointed!

The last two books on this reading list take you to some deep scholarly study on two of the most important issues that Tenthers address. The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause serves as a reference source for scholars seeking to understand the intellectual foundations of one of the Constitution’s most important clauses. It was written by four of the nations leading constitutional experts, Gary Lawson, Geoffrey P. Miller, Robert G. Natelson, and Guy I. Seidman.

Finally, Raoul Berger’s Government by Judiciary might be the most important book you’ll read moving forward. It is the thesis of this monumentally argued book that the United States Supreme Court – largely through abuses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution – has embarked on “a continuing revision of the Constitution, under the guise of interpretation.” If you choose just one book after the first half, this is the one you should get.

Ok, I couldn’t stop at 10. So as a bonus read, Louis Fisher’s Presidential War Power is just plain awesome.

Have you read any of these books? If so, which have you read and what are your thoughts on them? Post in the comments below.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter — @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.

The Best of Michael Boldin

On Monday, Texas Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview) pre-filed a bill to stop aggressive TSA groping in the Lone Star State.

The Texas Travel Freedom Act, House Bill 80, would make it a criminal act to intentionally touch u201Cthe anus, breast, buttocks, or sexual organ of the other person, including touching through clothing,u201D without probable cause in the process of determining whether to grant someone access to a public venue or means of public transportation.

The act also provides additional protection for minors.

A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he…removes a child younger than 18 years of age from the physical custody or control of a parent or guardian of the child or a person standing in the stead of a parent or guardian of the child.

If passed, the law would prevent TSA agents from carrying out the most intrusive pat-down searches at airports across Texas. Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey said it only makes sense to put limits on these types of personal searches.

u201CIf you walk up to somebody and grab their crotch out on the street, it will land you in jail. Blue uniforms and federal badges don't grant some goon the power to sexually assault you, or at least they shouldn't. A person doesn't forfeit her or his personal dignity with the purchase of an airline ticket.u201D

Simpson said that since the federal government won't back off of these intrusive and unconstitutional searches, the responsibility of protecting its citizens falls to the states, and ultimately the people themselves.

u201CAbel Upshur’s words are pertinent to our cause. u2018It is indispensably necessary to maintain the States in their proper position. If their people suffer them to sink into the insignificance of mere municipal corporations, it will be in vain to invoke their protection against the gigantic power of the Federal Government,'u201D he said. u201CNote his emphasis: it is the people through the states — under God’s favor — that must ultimately protect the people of our states from federal encroachments.u201D

Simpson sponsored a similar bill in the 2010 legislative session. HB1937 unanimously passed the Texas House. A week later, the bill passed favorably out of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee. But a letter delivered to key senators from U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy ultimately stopped the bill dead in its tracks. With the pressure on, Gov. Rick Perry placed the bill on a special session agenda, but political wrangling ultimately torpedoed the bill.

Maharrey says more Texas lawmakers need to grow a spine and stand up to the feds.

u201CLast time around, leadership in the Texas legislature failed miserably at its most basic duty — protecting its citizens. Basically, they said, u2018Sorry, we're afraid. So we are going to go ahead and let strangers feel up our wives, sons, daughters and grandparents.' This will continue and get worse until somebody puts their foot down and says, u2018No!'u201D Maharrey said. u201CThe feds say they will shut down the skies over Texas? Let them. And then let them explain to America that they are doing it because they want to continue molesting innocent people at the airport. Americans hate this crap, and I think it's pretty obvious who they will stand behind.u201D

ACTION ITEMS:

If you live in Texas, begin contacting your representative and senator and let them know you want them to pass the Texas Travel Freedom Act. You can find contact information for your legislators HERE.

If you don't live in Texas, contact your lawmakers and encourage them to introduce travel freedom legislation in your state. You can find model legislation HERE.

You can track travel freedom legislation across the U.S. HERE.

FULL TEXT OF THE LEGISLATION (HERE). An excerpt:

(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful; (2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; [or] (3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment; or (4) as part of a determination of whether to grant another person access to a publicly accessible venue or form of transportation, intentionally and without probable cause: (A) touches the anus, breast, buttocks, or sexual organ of the other person, including touching through clothing; (B) removes a child younger than 18 years of age from the physical custody or control of a parent or guardian of the child or a person standing in the stead of a parent or guardian of the child; (C) otherwise engages in conduct constituting an offense under Section 22.01(a)(3); or (D) harasses, delays, coerces, threatens, intimidates, or effectively denies or conditions access to the other person because of the other person's refusal to consent to (A), (B), or (C).

A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he…removes a child younger than 18 years of age from the physical custody or control of a parent or guardian of the child or a person standing in the stead of a parent or guardian of the child.

(c-1) For purposes of Subsection (a)(4), “public servant” includes: (1) an officer, employee, or agent of: (A) the United States; (B) a branch, department, or agency of the United States; or (C) another person acting under a contract with a branch, department, or agency of the United States to provide a security or law enforcement service; or (2) any other person acting under color of federal law.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter — @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.

The Best of Michael Boldin

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 12:31 — 11.5MB)

Today was a big day for supporters of Sound Money — as Ron Paul's Audit the Fed Bill passed the House 326-99. But, it still needs to get through a very hostile Senate, where it will likely never see the light of day. So in closing tonight, a new approach — Ending the Fed. Whether Congress Wants us to or Not!

Since its inception, the Federal Reserve's monetary policies have led to a decline of over 95% in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. As a result, there have been several attempts to reduce or even eliminate the Federal Reserve's powers.

Louis T. McFadden led efforts in the 1930s. Wright Patman pressed again in the 1970s. Henry Gonzalez got things moving in the 1990s. And, Ron Paul has led the charge for more than twenty years now. In nearly eighty years, though, none of these efforts have succeeded.

And, even with House passage of Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill earlier today, it's highly unlikely that the imperial Senate would ever allow light to be shed on the actions of its financial backer. Resistance to these efforts is seriously entrenched.

But yet, a large number of people across the political spectrum want to know what goes on behind the Fed's curtain. And with calls to audit the federal reserve reaching a fevered pitch, it's a good time to ask the basic question — is this even a worthy effort?

Not to say that you should want a secret national bank, but rather — is this kind of activism the best place for you to put your energy…and hope? Will lobbying the Senate get Harry Reid to allow a vote? Will calling Mitch McConnell change anything? Will Barack Obama or Mitt Romney allow such a bill to pass without their veto?

I believe the answer to all these questions is a big, fat NO.

PULLING THE RUG OUT

On the other hand, in contrast to attempts to put a stop to the Fed at the national level, a paper that William Greene presented at the Mises Institute's u201CAustrian Scholars Conferenceu201D proposes an alternative approach to ending the Federal Reserve's monopoly on money. The u201CConstitutional Tender Actu201D is a bill template that can be introduced in every State legislature in the nation. Passage would return each of them to the Constitution's u201Clegal tenderu201D provisions of Article I, Section 10:

u201CNo State Shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debtsu201D

Such a tactic would achieve the desired goal of abolishing the Federal Reserve system by attacking it from the bottom up — pulling the rug out from under it by working to make its functions irrelevant at the State and local level.

Under the Constitutional Tender Act, the State would be required to use only gold and silver coins — or their equivalents, such as checks or electronic transfers — for payments of any debt owed by or to the State. This includes things like taxes, fees, contract payments, and the like.

All such payments would be required to be denominated in legal tender gold and silver U.S. coins, including Gold Eagles, Silver Eagles, and pre-1965 90% silver coins. The market would then require that all State-chartered banks — as well as any other bank acting as a depository for State funds — offer accounts denominated in those types of gold and silver coins, and to keep such accounts segregated from other types of accounts such as Federal Reserve Notes.

But that's not all! Not only would the use of Federal Reserve Notes by the State be made illegal; the use of legal tender U.S. gold and silver coins would be encouraged amongst the general population too — by eliminating sanctions against its use.

HOW IT PLAYS OUT

Passage of the Constitutional Tender Act would introduce currency competition with Federal Reserve Notes by outlawing their use in transactions with the State. Ordinary people, being required to pay their State taxes in gold and silver coins, would find it necessary to conduct some transactions with metal — including the use of checks and debit cards based on bank accounts denominated in such coins

All businesses operating within the State, being required to pay their State sales taxes and license fees in gold and silver coins, would need to do the same. Most importantly, though, in order for businesses to acquire the amount of gold and silver needed, they find it necessary to offer their goods and services in u201Cdual currencyu201D denominations, where customers could choose to pay in Federal Reserve Notes or gold and silver coins.

This kind of u201Cbottom upu201D approach to ending the Fed will have a greater likelihood of success than the u201Ctop-downu201D approaches we've seen over the years for two major reasons:

1. The top-down approach has been an utter failure. While it has succeeded greatly in an educational role, it has simply not worked tactically.

2. It's decentralized. Political opposition won't be as strong or well-funded on a state level. Strategies and tactics can be adapted much quicker. And, most importantly, success in one state can be a far greater educational tool — and a source of courage — for people of a neighboring state, than endless calls to a Congress which almost never does what's right.

BYE BYE

Greene tells us that use of sound money would drive further use. He writes:

u201COver time, as residents of the State use both Federal Reserve Notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve Notes do will lead to a u201Creverse Gresham's Lawu201D effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve Notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the State's treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the State — as people in other States carry out their desire to bank with sound money — and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve Notes for any transactions.u201D

Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people. Nullifying the Fed on a state by state level is what will get us there.

Without a single act of Congress, the Federal Reserve system can be brought to its knees.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Get the model legislation, the Constitutional Tender Act, HERE. Read William Green’s full Scholar’s Conference paper HERE.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter — @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.

The Best of Michael Boldin

“If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively), it will continue to grow — regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.” — Thomas E. Woods

Nullification: 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, not a law as far as that state is concerned

The 10th Amendment Movement is an effort to push back against unconstitutional federal laws and regulations on a state level. The principle is known as “nullification,” and was advised by many prominent founders.

Current Nullification Efforts:

• State Marijuana Laws
• TSA
• NDAA: Liberty Preservation Act
• Health Care Freedom Act
• Food Freedom Act
• Intrastate Commerce
• Health Care Nullification Act
• Constitutional Tender
• Firearms Freedom Act
• 10th Amendment Resolutions
• REAL ID
• Defend the Guard
• Sheriffs First Legislation
• Cap and Trade/EPA
• Federal Tax Funds Act
• 10th Amendment Bills

Potential Future Efforts:

• Patriot Act
• No Child Left Behind

History of Nullification: While the media generally portrays nullification as being solely aligned with the efforts of the nullifiers of the South and the Civil War, this is certainly false, and reeks of misinformation. Nullification has a long history in the American tradition and has been invoked in support of free speech, in opposition to war and fugitive slave laws, and more. Read more on this history here.

- — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – -

State Marijuana Laws An honest reading of the Constitution with an original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers makes it quite clear that the federal government has no constitutional authority to override state laws on marijuana. All three branches of the federal government, however, have interpreted (and re-interpreted) the commerce clause of the Constitution to authorize them to engage in this activity, even though there’s supposedly no “legal” commerce in the plant. At best, these arguments are dubious; at worst an intentional attack on the Constitution and your liberty. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT STATE MARIJUANA LEGISLATION ^back to top

TSA In response to increased “security” measures forced upon the people at airports around the country — naked body scanners, “enhanced pat downs,” and more, legislation is being proposed to protect the right of the people to be secure in “their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT STATE-LEVEL TSA LEGISLATION ^back to top

NDAA: Liberty Preservation Act “the Legislature finds that the enactment into law by the United States Congress of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Public Law Number 112-81, is inimical to the liberty, security and well-being of the people of (STATE), and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in United States Constitution” CLICK HERE FOR LIBERTY PRESERVATION ACT TRACKING ^back to top

Health Care Freedom Act The Health Care Freedom Act is considered in states as either a bill or a state constitutional amendment — effectively prohibiting the enactment of any new government-run healthcare programs within the state. While many of the bills have language similar to true nullification legislation, many of them are promoted solely as a vehicle to drive a federal court battle — which is not nullification in its true sense. CLICK HERE FOR HEALTH CARE FREEDOM ACT TRACKING ^back to top

Food Freedom Act The Food Freedom Act is commonly considered a direct response to the “Food Safety and Modernization Act” from Washington D.C. The FFA declares that food grown and produced in state, when sold in state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the commerce clause, with food as the object. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT FOOD FREEDOM ACT LEGISLATION ^back to top

Intrastate Commerce Act As understood at the time of the founding, the regulation of commerce was meant to empower Congress to regulate the buying and selling of products made by others (and sometimes land), associated finance and financial instruments, and navigation and other carriage, across state jurisdictional lines. These bills attempt to reassert this original meaning of the commerce clause over wide areas of policy and effectively nullify federal laws and regulations that violate such limitations by regulating commerce and other activities that are solely intrastate. CLICK HERE INTRASTATE COMMERCE ACT TRACKING ^back to top

Health Care Nullification Act The 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 States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid, shall not be recognized, is specifically rejected, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect.” CLICK HERE FOR HEALTH CARE NULLIFICATION ACT TRACKING ^back to top

Constitutional Tender The United States Constitution declares, in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Constitutional Tender laws seek to nullify federal legal tender laws in the state by authorizing payment in gold and silver or a paper note backed 100% by gold or silver, CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL TENDER LEGISLATION ^back to top

Firearms Freedom Act Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the commerce clause, with firearms as the object. (source, FirearmsFreedomAct.com) CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT LEGISLATION ^back to top

10th Amendment Resolutions These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement of the legislature of the state. They play an important role, however. If you owned an apartment building and had a tenant not paying rent, you wouldn’t show up with an empty truck to kick them out without first serving notice. That’s how we view these Resolutions — as serving “notice and demand” to the Federal Government to “cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers.” Follow-up, of course, is a must. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT 10TH AMENDMENT RESOLUTIONS ^back to top

REAL ID Act Led by Maine in early 2007, 25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing the implement the Bush-era law which many expressed concerned about privacy, funding and more. While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void. CLICK HERE FOR ANTI-REAL ID LEGISLATION ^back to top

Defend the Guard Under the Constitution, the militia (now called the National Guard) may only be called into duty by the federal government in three specific situations. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the Congress is given the power to pass laws for “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The militia was intended by the Founders and Ratifiers to be defense force and nothing more. Deployments outside the country were not considered, and neither were internal deployments in pursuance of powers that were not delegated to the federal government. Congress has passed numerous laws in the past 100 years giving the federal government additional authority not mentioned in the Constitution. But, without amendment, altering the enumerated powers by legislative fiat is, in and of itself, unconstitutional. Campaigns in states around the country are working to reassert the authority of governors over guard troops. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT DEFEND THE GUARD LEGISLATION ^back to top

Sheriffs First Legislation A “Sheriffs First” bill would make it a state crime for any federal agent to make an arrest, search, or seizure within the state without first getting the advanced, written permission of the elected county sheriff of the county in which the event is to take place. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT SHERIFFS FIRST LEGISLATION ^back to top

Cap and Trade/EPA Cap and Trade and EPA regulations and acts are often claimed to be authorized under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. At best, this is a highly dubious claim. This interstate regulation of “commerce” did not include agriculture, manufacturing, mining, or land use. Nor did it include activities that merely “substantially affected” commerce. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT CAP AND TRADE/EPA NULLIFICATION LEGISLATION ^back to top

State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act Such laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the state”s Department of Revenue. A panel of legislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to the federal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal and Constitutionally-justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that are currently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people of the state. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT FEDERAL TAX FUNDS LEGISLATION ^back to top

10th Amendment Bills Unlike the many 10th Amendment Resolutions that have been introduced around the country since 2008, these “10th Amendment” or “State Sovereignty” bills are proposals for binding legislation. They include language to affirm the sovereignty of the people of the state and to create a commission or a committee to review the Constitutionality of acts emanating from the federal government. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT 10TH AMENDMENT BILLS ^back to top

Feb 2012: Keep the Pressure On!

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

The Best of Michael Boldin

The following was based off a speech given at a freedom rally hosted by state sovereignty advocate and Washington State Representative Matt Shea on August 30, 2011.

Almost everyone I know has written a letter to the federal government. They’ve contacted their representatives or senators at some point. They’ve emailed, or faxed, or even called – asking, demanding, or just plain begging these politicians to do something or not.

I never have. 

Why? Because I believe that going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal government is not only an absurd idea, it just doesn't work.

For example, those on the antiwar left got a “peace president” that has bombed Libya and massively expanded the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many of those same progressives vehemently opposed the Patriot Act forced upon us by George Bush and the republicans. With the Democrats in power, they got more of the same. Again. 

For those on the right, the so-called “conservative” George Bush and the republicans in Congress gave us more federal control over education with their No Child Left Behind Act. They also laid the groundwork for today’s national health care mandates with the largest expansion of federal control over health care in decades – Medicare Part D.

And for everyone, we’ve got the TSA. Because no one, at least no one I know, likes the fact that this particular agency violates the 4th amendment almost constantly. 

So, because of things like these, I’ve always thought it was pointless to write the Feds telling them anything. Until now. 

I recently wrote a draft letter to my so-called representatives in Washington. Before sending it off to them, I thought I’d share it with you here to see if you have suggestions or if it meets your approval as is.

So here’s what I came up with: 

“Dear Federal Government,

Go to hell.”

OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM? NOT AT ALL

Start talking Tenth Amendment, state sovereignty or heaven forbid – nullification – and you will immediately find yourself branded as an extremist, a nut job, a radical and out of the mainstream. They even created a supposedly nasty term for those of us who would dare advance such nutty principles – “Tenther.” 

Well, apparently, the American majority is just plain nutty.

A Rasmussen poll released last Friday tells us that "54 percent of likely U.S. Voters believe that states should have the right to opt out of federal programs they don't agree with." In other words, more than half of Americans now embrace the constitutional concept of state sovereignty. 

More telling than this small majority in support of such crazy ideas is the much smaller minority of people opposed to them. Only 31 percent of those polled disagreed and said states should not enjoy the ability to opt out. 

Think about that for a moment, because it is significant. Less than 1/3 of the country opposes our base principle that each state can and should have a unique approach to handling various political issues.

FEDERALISM RULES!

The founders told us that such a system was not only a good idea, but also in line with the constitution. They knew that one-size-fits-all solutions would lead to pretty much what we have today. A crumbling economy, liberty eroded, and continual violations of the rules given to government. 

Today, people everywhere are beginning to recognize a simple truth – what’s right for California is likely not right for Washington State. And what’s right for Idaho is likely not right for Alabama. And so on.

In fact, such a decentralized system – the system that the founders gave us in the constitution – is the only kind where people in a huge country like ours, with widely varying political, economic, and religious beliefs, can all live together under a big defense umbrella. In peace. 

John Adams famously told us that the real American revolution was not the war for independence… he said

“The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

HAPPENING RIGHT NOW

Even more exciting than this poll is the fact that states around the country are putting this idea into practice. 

In 1996, when my home state of California decided to opt out of federal drug laws by allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes, they were going it alone. But, soon other states recognized not only their own ability, but the possible benefit of opting out of this particular federal program. Today, fifteen states are doing so, and they’re increasingly getting away with it.

A few years ago, the ACLU championed state-level opposition to the 2005 REAL ID Act, which required states to follow federal guidelines in issuing driver's licenses. Since then, over half the states enacted legislation against participation, and all had applied for or received extensions by the 2008 deadline. 

Here we are six years later and it's still not fully implemented, because states just won't do it. 

States “opting out” of federal programs (at the Tenth Amendment Center, we refer to it as “nullification“) can be a pretty effective strategy. Far more effective than “voting the bums out” or writing a letter to federal politicians, in my opinion.

STATES' RIGHTS: NOT JUST FOR LIBERALS

Better yet, this growing states rights movement is not just exclusive to progressives and the left. Conservatives have gotten on board with the idea in recent years, and they are becoming more effective with it, too.

A recent Washington Times report tells us “All told, 17 states have enacted laws rejecting parts of the Affordable Care Act.” And, as tracked by the Tenth Amendment Center, more than ten states have begun to consider the next step, rejecting (read: nullifying) the entire Affordable Care Act, every word of it. 

GOING MAINSTREAM

According to Rasmussen, "support for states’ rights goes even higher when unfunded mandates enter the equation. Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters think states should have the right to opt out of such programs. Twenty-one percent (21%) disagree."

What does that mean? Only one in five now believe that the states should have to blindly comply with federal mandates, no matter what. This is certainly good news, and something to build upon. We Tenthers are winning the ideological battle amongst the people.

In the end, it seems to me that Thomas Jefferson’s ideas from the Principles of ’98 have gone mainstream, as they should. He was far more eloquent than I when he wrote, “the several states comprising the United States of America are not united on a principle of unlimited submission to their general government.” 

But, the message remains the same.

"Dear federal government. Go to hell! "

Michael Maharrey, communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center, contributed to this article.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

The Best of Michael Boldin

Rachel Maddow doesn't like me. I get that.

Without trying, though, I guess I've been getting under her skin. She obviously doesn't like the fact that the Tenth Amendment Center's efforts to promote nullification have been gaining some serious traction around the country. Just this week, Rach did a full 14 minute segment on the subject. And her presentation, as you might guess, wasn't a cheer leading session either.

The segment, titled "Confederates in the Attic" was about how efforts today, primarily championed by the Tenth Amendment Center, to decentralize power and reject unconstitutional federal "laws," are somehow directly-related to slave owners in the pre-civil war south.

No. That's not a joke.

She says "a conservative group called the Tenth Amendment Center has been pushing a lot of the anti-health reform stuff…in the context of nullification. And they're pushing for other kinds of nullification too."

Ok, other than the absurdity of using the term "conservative" to define an anti-drug war, antiwar, anti-patriot act organization started in 2006 in opposition to GW Bush, she's right on the money here.

The Center has been pushing anti-health reform stuff? Yup. We drafted the model bill, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act. Versions of our legislation — to either fully nullify or refuse compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), have been introduced in 11 states so far, and it's making headway in a few too.

We're pushing for other kinds of nullification too? Ab-so-freakin-lutely.

Two for two. Good job, Rachel!

But here's where she goes off the reservation into heavy "War profiteer masters" spin mode. You see, Rachel's job, like everyone at MSNBC, CNN, Fox and the rest of the mainstream media, is to keep convincing people that the only way to think is in a battle of democrat vs republican. Conservative vs liberal. One side is your friend, the other is your enemy. While left fears right and right fears left, her and her buddies keep getting more money and more power.

Sun Tzu would've been proud at this modern iteration of his strategy to divide and conquer.

Rachel continues — by telling her audience of the crazy stuff that the Tenth Amendment Center is pushing, and that states are actually working on. Here's a few:

• Food Freedom Act — nullifying the "Food safety and modernization act,"
• Firearms Freedom Act — nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations
• Intrastate Commerce Act — all products made or grown in state and sold in state are not under federal purview.
• EPA Nullification — nullifying some or all EPA regulations

Without getting into the details of how she twisted each and every one of these efforts, it's easiest to sum it up with this single statement of hers in rounding up the nullification movement:

"Your federal laws don't apply here, Yankees!"

You don't like a federal law and work to oppose it in your state? You must love the slave-ownin' south. Wow, how insightful, Rachel!

So, is Rachel Maddow just a jerk, is she a liar, or is she ignorant? Hard to say, but let me share a little perspective.

I don't fool myself into thinking that a majority of Rachel's audience is going to be supportive of everything that we're working to nullify — especially things like gun laws and the EPA. But, I do know in my own experience through interviews with places like Mother Jones, Raw Story, Huffington Post, and others, that there is some strong support on particular issues.

While Rachel was talking about what she wants you to believe is a racist, evil nullification movement being pushed by the TAC, she had this picture showing — a somewhat-modified version of our live Legislative Tracking page:

Did Rachel do her journalistic duty and report on the top-listed efforts of the Nullification movement, or did she pick and choose just a few in order to frame the discussion in a left vs right cat fight?

I wonder.

She talked about guns, food safety, the EPA and even Constitutional Tender Acts. But, why oh why did she skip over any and everything that would be of interest to her own audience?

The answer is pretty obvious to me.

So what did Rachel skip reporting on? Let's see.

The number one thing listed on that page — unreadable on TV — is "state marijuana laws."

You’d think if she were “reporting” on efforts that the TAC was pushing, she’d at least mention the first thing on our list. But, what could Rachel use to scare her mostly-liberal audience there? "These neo-confederates are trying to destroy the union by refusing to comply with the drug war! Beware!!"

Or, right below that red MSNBC graphic blob, you could see, click and learn about how 25 states, championed by the ACLU, passed laws to reject Bush's 2005 Real ID act.

Would Rachel have then said, "The ACLU wants us to believe we can just pick and choose what laws to follow. That's what Calhoun said in South Carolina — and it led directly to the civil war!"

Or, just below that, you could see how the Tenth Amendment Center is working to promote efforts to nullify TSA body scanners and violations of the 4th Amendment — as referenced by the Raw Story here.

"These conservatives want the terrorists to win, and they're willing to let radical Islamo-fascists get on planes without being body-scanned. Do they really want another civil war?" Is that Maddow's view on the TSA?

And, just one more — she also skipped over our Defend the Guard act, which is a first step effort towards ending unconstitutional wars from the bottom up. The bill was just introduced in Maine — with 2 republican and 4 democrat co-sponsors.

I wonder how Rachel would've dealt with that one. Maybe something like, "Barack Obama is trying to do his duty as commander in chief and keep this country safe. These confederate states don't like our boys in uniform and are obviously part of the blame-America-first crowd. If the nullifers win, we just might be invaded by Libya!"

No. She'd never do any of that. I'd respect her more if she did, though.

Why? Because at least she'd be consistent in principle. Which, of course, she's not. Partisan hack comes to mind, but I think that's too soft a term.

To support nullification, you don't have to be from the right or the left. You just have to decide that enough is enough, that you want to determine you own rules in your own area. Don't expect that to be in the next segment, though. Zombies attack!

Next time, maybe she'll call me before reporting on the TAC again. Maybe. But, I doubt it.

This is reprinted from the Tenth Amendment Center.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

The Best of Michael Boldin

When Washington D.C. violates the constitution – as it does every single day – the essential question is – “what do we do about it?”

For countless decades, Americans have been responding through protests, lawsuits, and “voting the bums out.” Yet, year in and year out, federal power always grows. And it doesn’t matter which political party is in power, or what person occupies the white house either.

THE RIGHTFUL REMEDY

In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” [emphasis added]

Notice that TJ didn’t advise us to use nullification as a remedy “once in a while.” And he certainly didn’t tell us that a nullification is the rightful remedy after “we vote some bums out” or “we sue the federal government in federal court” or after anything else for that matter. Jefferson was pretty straightforward and recommended that every single time the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it in the constitution (there’s about 30 powers and nothing more), that we’re to reject and nullify those acts on a state level as they happen.

HAPPENING NOW

Already, more than two dozen states have virtually stopped the 2005 Real ID act dead in its tracks. How? By refusing to implement it. Fifteen states – most recently Arizona – are using the principles of the 10th Amendment to actively defy federal laws (and a supreme court ruling, too!) on marijuana. Eight states have passed Firearms Freedom Acts in an attempt to reject some federal gun laws and regulations. And seven states have passed Health Care Freedom Acts to block health care mandates from being enforced.

NULL. VOID. OF NO EFFECT.

Get used to reading these words, because the political climate is starting to swing a new direction. There is a growing number of people in America that are recognizing a simple truth – Asking, demanding, or suing to get the federal government to fix problems caused by the federal government just doesn’t work.

Take, for example, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, first introduced in Texas as HB297, and now also introduced in Montana (SB161), Wyoming (HB0035), Oregon (SB498) and Maine (LD58). Here’s an excerpt:

“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 States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid, shall not be recognized, is specifically rejected, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect.”

But these bills, as introduced in Texas, Maine, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming are far more than mere declarations or position statements

ENFORCEMENT

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in 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.

In his famous speech during the war of 1812, Daniel Webster said:

“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”

Here Madison and Webster assert what is required of nullification laws to be successful – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

All five bills explicitly include this principle, and if passed, would impose penalties on federal agents for attempting to enforce National Health Care mandates in their state. For example, from Wyoming’s HB35:

Any official, agent, employee or public servant of the state of Wyoming as defined in W.S. 6-5-101, who enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this article shall be guilty of a felony punishable by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), imprisonment in the county jail for not more than two (2) years, or both.

Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect approximately ten states to introduce such bills in the 2011 legislative session.

This is reprinted from the Tenth Amendment Center.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

The Best of Michael Boldin

The following article is based off a speech given on 09-25-10 at the 25th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference in San Francisco, CA. Michael will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! in Orlando on 10-10-10 and Chattanooga on 10-23-10. Get tickets here — or by calling 888-71-TICKETS.

Tom Woods’ new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, is not just another reading assignment on the evils and failures of the current administration (like so many political books have been in recent years and decades). Instead, it’s the centerpiece of a mass movement — a new strategy to deal with those evils and failures of federal administrations — past, present, and future.

Prominent founders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government were ever to become the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers, those powers would always grow, regardless of separations of power, protests, lawsuits, elections, or any other vaunted part of the American system.

Put another way, this would be like having your ex’s mother as the final judge on the structure of your divorce settlement. (Thanks to Andrew Nappi for this perspective)

But, sadly enough, this is just what Americans have been doing for a long, long time. When the federal government violates the Constitutional limits on its power (which it has been doing in big ways for nearly a century), we the people have been going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal government.

We the People march on D.C. to protest in the hope that federal politicians will change their minds and limit their own power. We the People go to federal courts with lawsuits in the hope that federal judges will limit the power of the federal government. We the People "vote the bums out" nearly every election cycle in the hope that new federal politicians will reject federal powers handed to them on a silver platter.

Seriously, folks, does this sound like an effective solution?

Clearly not, because no matter how many emails or calls we make, and no matter how many marches we hold in DC, federal power continues to grow. No matter how many lawsuits are filed, and no matter how many bums are voted out, federal power continues to grow — and it doesn’t matter what political party is in power, what black-robed deity is nominated to the Supreme Court, or what personality occupies the White House.

Woods makes the case that there actually is another option — one that the powers that be (and their government-run schools) don’t want you to know about. Nullification — the act of rendering unconstitutional laws null and void, or inoperative, on a state level — is, as Thomas Jefferson put it, the "rightful remedy" in response to acts of undelegated power by the federal government, and Woods lays it all out in brilliant fashion.

In Nullification, Woods not only goes through the historical and Constitutional case for nullification, but also many of the modern day applications of the principle. He shows us how this isn’t just a good idea, it’s already a movement — and it’s ready to hit the mainstream.

For example, in the past 2 years, multiple states have passed laws making national health care mandates illegal, eight others have passed laws nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations, and others are working to ban federal cap-and-trade regulations. And this is just the beginning. Dozens of states across the country are considering laws to ban a myriad of unconstitutional federal "laws" (which aren’t really laws at all) and people are starting to catch on that the states can stop D.C.!

Over the last 10+ years, 14 states have actively defied unconstitutional federal laws on marijuana. And, starting in 2007, more than 2 dozen states started passing laws and resolutions banning the Real ID act. Today, while that law still sits on the books and has never been challenged in court, it’s virtually null and void in most of the country. There haven’t been any tanks rolling into states like California to shut down marijuana dispensaries, and funding hasn’t been taken away from states like Missouri for refusing to comply with the Real ID Act. So whatever your point of view on these particular issues may be, there’s an important lesson to be learned…

Nullification works.

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century is not just another great book from a great author — it’s one for the generations and should become the guidebook for the future of liberty in this country.

In conjunction with the release of the book, the Tenth Amendment Center and WeRefuse.com have set up a multi-state speaking tour, NullifyNow. Tom Woods will be the keynote speaker at a number of locations and other top thinkers and activists will be on hand as well.

Already signed on to support this tour on a national level are prominent groups and organizations such as Campaign for Liberty, JBS.org, The New American and Young Americans for Liberty. The goal? To educate and activate people in support of this essential principle of nullification.

The bottom line is pretty straightforward — if we continue doing the same things we’ve been doing all along, we know what’s going to happen. The march to tyranny isn’t stopping. Woods’ Nullification gives us the blueprint, and NullifyNow brings us together to make it happen.

This is reprinted from the Tenth Amendment Center.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

The Best of Michael Boldin

Over the last couple days, I’ve received a number of emails about Arizona’s new immigration law — and thought it was worthy of some constitutional consideration.

To start — we must keep adherence to the 10th Amendment as a top priority. This means that the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers that we the people of the several states delegated to it in the Constitution . . . and nothing more. These are often called the enumerated powers.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution empowers Congress to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" — or, more simply stated, to make universal rules about giving foreign-born residents of the United States the "privileges of native" born residents.

The most important thing to consider at this point are the words "immigration" and "naturalization" themselves. While most of us would consider them strongly related, we have to keep in mind that in any 18th-century law dictionary, they would have been seen as two wholly different words, with two separate meanings.

And, if like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean the exact same thing today as they meant the moment it was signed (barring amendments, of course), it’s imperative that we understand the meanings of such words at the time of the founding.

For example, a common 18th century definition of naturalization was "The act of investing aliens with the privileges of native subjects," while emigrate had a common meaning of "to move from one place to another."

Such a delegated power over "naturalization" then, does not specifically address the power over immigration rules in any way. But, Constitutionally-speaking, one also has to then consider the common law doctrine of principles and incidents (i.e. the necessary and proper clause) to find authorization for anything not spelled out in the constitution.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that control over who can and cannot cross a border was considered by the Founders to be an incidental (lesser and directly required) power related to the delegated power over naturalization.

But, I’m sure someone will try to make one eventually. And yes, I’m all ears! Otherwise, such power is something retained by the people of the several states to be dealt with by their state governments or not — as they see fit.

If this analysis is correct, then Arizona’s new immigration law would be acceptable under the federal constitution. It would then need to be scrutinized for compliance under the Arizona State Constitution (which I have heard almost no mention of in this debate).

At the same time, if my state of California (or any other state for that matter) were to then pass a law allowing more immigration than what Arizona or D.C. or anyone else has allowed, this would also be acceptable under the Constitution — and then would need to be scrutinized for compliance under the State Constitution of that state.

Such "marketplace competition" between states would certainly allow us to see which policy worked best, not only for the economy, but for the amount of freedom vs restriction that people want in their lives. That’s the system that was set up by the founders and ratifiers under the Constitution. It’s called federalism.

The key, of course, would be to remove any federal funding of social programs for people who weren’t "naturalized" under the rules of the federal government (discussions on the constitutionality of those programs aside for the time being). States, however, could enact their own social programs should they choose — or none at all.

There is one other extremely important point in all this — just because something is "constitutional" does not mean it’s good policy.

This is reprinted from the Tenth Amendment Center.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

The Best of Michael Boldin

The following is based off a speech given at the Palm Desert Tax Day Tea Party on April 15, 2010

There are a few core beliefs that guide me in everything I do as the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center:

• Rights are not “granted” to us by the government — they are ours by our very nature, by our birthright.
• ALL just political authority is derived from the people — and government exists solely with our consent!
• We the people of the several states created the federal government — not the other way around!
• The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government in the Constitution — and nothing more.
• The People of each State have the sole and exclusive right and power to govern themselves in all areas not delegated to their government.
• A Government without limits is a tyranny!
• When Congress enacts laws and regulations that are not made in Pursuance of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the People are not bound to obey them.

These seven items are about sovereignty, which is something we hear about quite a bit lately — but few really understand. Sovereignty is defined as “final authority.” All through history, this final authority was in the hands of just one or two people — a king, a queen, or even just a small cabal of elites at the top of the food chain.

But the founders and ratifiers gave us something unique in history — a first, really. They created a system where the average people — you and I — held final authority. We the people are sovereign. We the people hold final authority. We the people are in charge. And, they the government work for us!

The Tenth Amendment codifies in law this principle of popular sovereignty — that “We the People” of the several states created the federal government to be our agent for certain, enumerated purposes — and nothing more. But unfortunately, that’s not how things have been working, and very little that the government does is actually authorized by the constitution. And, this is a problem that didn’t just start in January 2009 — it’s been going on a long, long time.

Question — What do we do about it?

• Do we call and email our representatives in Congress and ask them to limit their own power?
• Do we march on D.C. and demand that the government limit its own power?
• Do we sue them in their own courts and ask their judges to limit their power?
• Do we vote the bums out in 2010, or 2012 — and ask new politicians to limit their own power?

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers — that power would endlessly grow…regardless of elections, separation of powers, courts, or other vaunted parts of our system.

Guess what — they were right. For a hundred years, we the people have been suing, and marching, and lobbying, and voting the bums out — but yet…year in and year out, government continues to grow and your liberty continues to diminish — and it doesn’t matter who is the president, or what political party controls congress — the growth of power in the federal government never stops.

The problem we face today is not about personalities or political parties — it’s about power. Until we address the absolute fact that the federal government has too much power, things will never change.

Question — What do we do about it?

Jefferson and Madison gave us the answer. In response to the unconstitutional attacks on liberty that were the Alien and Sedition Acts, they secretly authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. Here are a few excerpts that really define exactly how things are supposed to work when two or more branches of the federal government conspire against the constitution and your liberty.

the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government

whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated [by the Constitution], a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy

So while it might be important to call, petition, demand, march, sue and vote bums out, because they’re all bums, there’s much more we’re supposed to do. When the federal government violates your rights, you’re not supposed to wait four years for new politicians in the hope that they’ll fix it. You’re not supposed to wait two, or four, or more years for some black-robed judge to pronounce that they’ve violated your rights. You are supposed to resist those violations of your liberty as they happen — and it is your state’s solemn duty to do the same.

New Movement

While such a task might seem daunting, it’s something that’s already happening today, and has been growing in recent years too.

In 2007, one state rep in Maine introduced a non-binding resolution opposing the REAL ID Act.

In 2008, one state rep in Oklahoma introduced a simple non-binding resolution reaffirming the Constitution as defined by the 10th amendment,.

In 2009, one state rep in Montana introduced a bill to nullify some federal gun laws and regulations.

In 2009, one state rep in Arizona introduced a state constitutional amendment to effectively ban a national health care plan in that state.

These simple, single acts by courageous people have grown into a state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal acts the likes this country has possibly never seen.

• Already a dozen states have passed 10th amendment resolutions reaffirming the Constitution as the founders and ratifiers gave us.
• 25 states have passed laws and resolutions nullifying the Real ID act — stopping it dead in its tracks in most of the country.
• 7 states have passed Firearms Freedom Acts — nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations in their states.
• 14 states have now passed laws nullifying unconstitutional federal laws on marijuana.
• 3 states have already passed Health Care Freedom Acts to ban federal health care mandates in their states.
• Other states are considering nullification laws on cap and trade, the misuse of state national guard troops, monetary policy and much more.

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center we have released model legislation for you to give to your state reps to demand that they stand with you and refuse to comply with unconstitutional acts from Washington D.C. Our latest? The Federal Health Care Nullification Act.

This Act is not over 1000 pages. It’s not 500 pages. It’s not a dozen, or even two. It’s one single page to nullify now.

Here’s a majority of what it says:

The Legislature of the State of _______________ 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 States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

And it adds some much-needed u201Cteeth” too:

Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or both.

They want to fine us or put us in jail for not buying insurance from some corporation. What’s next — fining us for not buying a Chevy? Well, it’s time that we turn this thing around — and in the federal health care nullification act — we fine THEM for violating our rights!

While this may seem difficult to accomplish — or even insurmountable — if we do nothing, or if we even do the same things we’ve been doing, we’re doomed to failure But if we do what’s right, we will succeed! Samuel Adams put it best: “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”

Question: What do we do about it?

Step one is to sign on in support the Federal Health Care Nullification Act. WeRefuse.com is a new website (and the only one that I’m aware of) dedicated solely to nullifying national health care on a state level. Join us in our first goal of 100,000 to stop national health care “laws” today!

Let’s make this work and then we can use it as a model for every other constitutional violation coming out of D.C.

This is reprinted from the Tenth Amendment Center.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

The Best of Michael Boldin

Now that Heath Care legislation has passed, the obvious question for opponents is this: Now What? My answer is best summed up with just one word:

Marijuana.

No, I don’t mean that you should go out and smoke away your anger and frustration. Instead, you should feel empowered. The best way to explain this is by telling the story of a disabled mother from Northern California.

ANGEL’S STORY

Angel Raich has been permanently disabled since 1995. She has an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder and other serious medical conditions. In 1997, her doctor felt that marijuana would be an effective medication.

Angel used homegrown marijuana, and she and her physician claim that it’s helped significantly. You may not agree with Angel’s choice, but it’s one made in accordance with California state law, which allows for such use. The federal government, however, has not shown much respect for state laws in recent decades, and chose to take action. After DEA agents seized and destroyed all six of her marijuana plants, she sued to stop them from doing so again.

The suit went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in Gonzales v Raich, Angel lost. The 2005 ruling made clear that the federal government did not recognize state laws authorizing the use of marijuana — in any situation.

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

The court ruled that control over a plant grown and consumed on one’s own property was authorized under the "Interstate Commerce Clause" of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution empowers Congress to "regulate…commerce among the several states." It has never been amended.

Like any legal document, if the words of the Constitution mean today what they meant at the moment it was signed, we must understand just what those words meant at the time of its ratification.

There’s been a lot of scholarly research on this clause, especially the word "commerce" itself. Without getting into the long details of it all, it means this: Congress is authorized to make uniform national rules on the trade and exchange of goods (and related activities like their transportation) that cross state borders. On top of it, the word "regulate" meant to "make regular" — that is, to specify how these transactions may be conducted. Regulate did not mean ban, prohibit, or mandate. These words have different meanings.

With this in mind, the Supreme Court, which is not a set of nine infallible gods, ruled incorrectly. But rule, they did. Thus, all three federal branches agreed that State-level laws allowing marijuana were a no-go. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas gave a stark warning:

"If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption…then Congress’ Article I powers…have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

RESIST DC

Even though she lost the case, Angel indicated she’d continue to use marijuana. At the time of the ruling, there were 10 states that had such laws. Not one of them has been repealed. Since then, another 4 states have passed similar laws, and many others are considering them, including South Dakota, Kansas, and New Hampshire.

Today, over half a million people are registered users of medical marijuana, and estimates say that millions more use the plant without registration. What’s been the result? The federal government will occasionally arrest some high-profile users, but taken in the perspective of the multitudes consuming the plant, the threat is quite low.

And, in mid-2009, recognizing a need for "efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources," the Justice Department announced that it would back off the prosecution of medical marijuana patients even further.

HUH?

You might be asking, "How does this apply to healthcare mandates?" Well, the answer is pretty simple. When enough states pass laws defying federal laws, and enough people actively defy them too, D.C. simply doesn’t have the manpower to arrest and prosecute all of us.

This kind of activism — while it clearly carries personal risk — should be a real blueprint for people that have been consistently unable to find constitutional relief in Congress, the Executive, or the Courts.

Marijuana users: Love ‘em or hate ‘em, but show some respect for them, as many have suffered greatly for doing what they believe is right. People who believe strongly about other issues, like healthcare mandates, would do well to learn from them.

What should be done about federal control over health care? The same thing that should be done for every unconstitutional federal law, regulation, or mandate — Nullify Now!

This is reprinted from the Tenth Amendment Center.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

The Best of Michael Boldin

“If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.” –Thomas E. Woods

The 10th Amendment Movement is an effort to push back against unconstitutional federal laws and regulations on a state level. The principle is known as “nullification,” and was advised by many prominent founders.

Current Nullification Efforts:

• 10th Amendment Resolutions
• 10th Amendment Bills
• Firearms Freedom Act
• Medical Marijuana Laws
• REAL ID
• Health Care
• Bring the Guard Home
• Constitutional Tender
• Cap and Trade
• Federal Tax Funds Act
• Sheriffs First Legislation
• Federal Gun Laws
• Regulation of Intrastate Commerce

Potential Future Efforts:

• Patriot Act
• No Child Left Behind
• State-Initiated Constitutional Amendments

History of Nullification: While the media generally portrays nullification as being solely aligned with the efforts of the nullifiers of the South and the Civil War, this is certainly false, and reeks of misinformation. Nullification has a long history in the American tradition and has been invoked in support of free speech, in opposition to war and fugitive slave laws, and more. Read more on this history here.

10th Amendment Resolutions These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do no carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement of the legislature of the state. They play an important role, however. If you owned an apartment building and had a tenant not paying rent, you wouldn’t show up with an empty truck to kick them out without first serving notice. That’s how we view these Resolutions – as serving “notice and demand” to the Federal Government to “cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers.” Follow-up, of course, is a must. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT 10TH AMENDMENT RESOLUTIONS

10th Amendment Bills Unlike the many 10th Amendment Resolutions that have been introduced around the country since 2008, these “10th Amendment” or “State Sovereignty” bills are proposals for binding legislation. They include language to affirm the sovereignty of the people of the state and to create a commission or a committee to review the Constitutionality of acts emanating from the federal government. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT 10TH AMENDMENT BILLS

Firearms Freedom Act Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the “commerce clause,” with firearms as the object. (source, FirearmsFreedomAct.com) CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT LEGISLATION

Medical Marijuana Laws An honest reading of the Constitution with an original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers makes it quite clear that the federal government has no constitutional authority to override state laws on marijuana. All three branches of the federal government, however, have interpreted (and re-interpreted) the commerce clause of the Constitution to authorize them to engage in this activity, even though there’s supposedly no “legal” commerce in the plant. At best, these arguments are dubious; at worst an intentional attack on the Constitution and your liberty. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT STATE MARIJUANA LAWS

REAL ID Act Led by Maine in early 2007, 25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing the implement the Bush-era law which many expressed concerned about privacy, funding and more. While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void. CLICK HERE FOR ANTI-REAL ID LEGISLATION

Health Care Like Marijuana above, a reading of the Constitution through the original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers makes it quite clear that any national health care plan, or national public option, is not something that was delegated by the People to the Federal Government in the Constitution. However, the courts, politicians and many commentators have interpreted (and re-interpreted) the Commerce Clause, the general Welfare Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause in ways not intended by the Founders so as to justify such programs under the Constitution. They are most certainly wrong. A number of states are considering legislation to effectively nullify any future national health care plan. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT HEALTH CARE NULLIFICATION LEGISLATION

Bring the Guard Home Under the Constitution, the militia (now called the National Guard) may only be called into duty by the federal government in three specific situations. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the Congress is given the power to pass laws for “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The militia was intended by the Founders and Ratifiers to be defense force and nothing more. Deployments outside the country were not considered, and neither were internal deployments in pursuance of powers that were not delegated to the federal government. Congress has passed numerous laws in the past 100 years giving the federal government additional authority not mentioned in the Constitution. But, without amendment, altering the enumerated powers by legislative fiat is, in and of itself, unconstitutional. Campaigns in states around the country are working to reassert the authority of governors over guard troops. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT BRING THE GUARD HOME LEGISLATION

Constitutional Tender The United States Constitution declares, in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Constitutional Tender laws seek to nullify federal legal tender laws in the state by authorizing payment in gold and silver or a paper note backed 100% by gold or silver, CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL TENDER LEGISLATION

Cap and Trade Cap and Trade is often claimed to be authorized under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. At best, this is a highly dubious claim. This interstate regulation of “commerce” did not include agriculture, manufacturing, mining, or land use. Nor did it include activities that merely “substantially affected” commerce. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT CAP AND TRADE NULLIFICATION LEGISLATION

State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act Such laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue. A panel of legislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to the federal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal and Constitutionally-justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that are currently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people of the state. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT FEDERAL TAX FUNDS LEGISLATION

Sheriffs First Legislation A “Sheriffs First” bill would make it a state crime for any federal agent to make an arrest, search, or seizure within the state without first getting the advanced, written permission of the elected county sheriff of the county in which the event is to take place. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT SHERIFFS FIRST LEGISLATION

Federal Gun Laws Nullification As codified in law with the 2nd Amendment, the People did not delegate the power to regulate or control the ownership of firearms to the federal government. And, as the 10th Amendment makes clear, all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States or to the People themselves. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT FEDERAL GUN LAWS NULLIFICATION LEGISLATION

Nullification of Federal Intrastate Commerce Regulation As understood at the time of the founding, the regulation of commerce was meant to empower Congress to regulate the buying and selling of products made by others (and sometimes land), associated finance and financial instruments, and navigation and other carriage, across state jurisdictional lines. These bills attempt to reassert this original meaning of the commerce clause over wide areas of policy and effectively nullify federal laws and regulations that violate such limitations by regulating commerce and other activities that are solely intrastate. CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT INTRASTATE COMMERCE REGULATION NULLIFICATION LEGISLATION

This is reprinted from the Tenth Amendment Center.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Today, on its 3rd reading, the Wyoming Senate passed HB95, the Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 30–0. (h/t Kristy Tyrney, Wyoming10A.org)

The bill states:

A personal firearm, a firearm action or receiver, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state to be used or sold within the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

The Wyoming House already passed the bill last week, and it will now be transmitted to Governor Freudenthal’s desk for signature.

In 2009, both Tennessee and Montana passed the Act into state law. Last week, Utah’s Governor Herbert made that state the 3rd.

NULLIFICATION

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. 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, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state’s citizens.

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in 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.

HB95 includes this principle, and if passed, would impose penalties for violations of the law:

Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010, and the Virginia Senate recently passed a similar bill, which now awaits action from the state house.

Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.

Nearly two-dozen states are considering similar legislation.

• CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s printable Firearms Freedom Act Brochure (pdf)
• CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Legislative Tracking Page

This is reprinted from the Tenth Amendment Center.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

The following
is based on a speech at the first annual Tenth Amendment Summit
in Atlanta, GA on February 26, 2010.

How can a “crazy”
Californian and a “conservative” Georgian be friends?
It’s simple – through the principles of ’98. In 1798,
the John Adams administration signed into law that Alien and Sedition
Acts, which made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous,
and malicious writing” against the government or its officials.
In practice, it was used to quell the freedom of speech in dissent
against the sitting administration.

In the Kentucky
Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson responded:

“the
several States composing the United States of America, are not
united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General
Government”

But wait –
that’s not all. He went on to say that all undelegated powers
exercised by the federal government are “unathoritative, void
and of no force.” And, that a “nullification of the act
is the rightful remedy.”

NULLIFICATION?

There’s
been plenty of people talking about nullification lately, but many
people don’t know what it really means. I can think of no better
way to define it than how my friend Derek Sheriff from the Arizona
Tenth Amendment Center has done:

Nullification
is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional
or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires
any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal
government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable
court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal
government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification
doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification
does not require permission from any person or institution outside
of one’s own state.

Nullification
is something that’s already happening around the country –
and Derek explains the process:

Nullification
begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist
a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves
a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor.
In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state
directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory
law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal
on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce
any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.

At its very
core, nullification is mass civil-disobedience to the federal government
with the support of the state apparatus. It’s about “We
the People” exercising our rights whether the politicians or
judges in Washington D.C. want to give us “permission”
to exercise those rights or not.

ROSCOE FILBURN

During the
Great Depression, while millions of people were out of work or starving,
the FDR administration required American farmers to restrict production
of wheat in order to raise prices.

As a farmer,
Roscoe Filburn was told he could plant a little over 10 acres of
wheat, which he did grow and sell on the market. He also decided
that it was in his best interest – possibly because he had
less revenue due to the production limitations – to plant another
10 or so acres. But, the “excess” wheat grown was used
at home to feed his livestock, among other things. He never sold
it, so he saw this as being outside the scope of Congressional power
to regulate “interstate commerce.”

What did the
federal government do? The expected – they ordered Roscoe to
destroy his crops and pay a fine. Think about that for a moment
and you’ll really understand the evil of having too much power
in too few hands. At a time when large numbers of people were starving,
these thugs in government forced people to reduce production for
the sake of raising prices. From this, it seems clear to me that
corporate bailouts have been going on a long, long time in America.

Roscoe sued,
and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In Wickard
v Filburn, the Court ruled against him and the result was that
the Federal Government assumed a power that was new in the history
of this country. It now had the power to control the growing and
consuming of something that never left one’s back yard.

LOST LIBERTY

John Adams,
who as we can see from his signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts,
was no saint, did give us a great warning on the growth of government
power. In 1775 he wrote, “liberty once lost, is lost forever.”
He went on to explain that when the People allow government to gain
power and restrict liberty, it will never voluntarily give that
power back. Liberty given up to government power will never be returned
to the people without a long and difficult struggle.

If we fast-forward
to present times, we can see this principle at work.

ANGEL RAICH

In the 1990s,
the People of California voted to legalize consumption of marijuana
for medicinal purposes. Angel Raich, who has a huge cancerous tumor
in her brain was told by her doctor and California law that using
marijuana to relieve some of the pain associated with her cancer
was acceptable.

The Feds don’t
take too kindly to states passing laws in direct contravention to
theirs. Marijuana, for example, is illegal on a federal level in
all circumstances, and federal agencies have consistently said they
don’t recognize state laws. You can probably guess what happened,
right?

Federal agents
destroyed Angel’s homegrown marijuana plants without much resistance.
Like Roscoe before her, Angel sued, and the case went all the way
to the Supreme Court. In 2005, the Supreme Court once again ruled
that growing and consuming a plant in one’s own back yard qualified
as “interstate commerce.” And, because of that, the federal
government was then authorized to control, regulate, or outright
ban such activities under the threat of fine or prison.

Clarence Thomas,
in his famous dissent, got it right when he wrote, “If the
majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now
regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout
the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance
to the people of New York that the “powers delegated”
to the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while
those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”

PARTISAN
CONSTITUTIONALISTS?

The main problem
we face is that much of the support for the 10th Amendment is little
more than partisanship. For many years, conservatives have rightly
railed against policies such as the ones that FDR used against Roscoe
Filburn. But, at the same time, they’ve turned a blind eye
to those same policies when used against Angel Raich and her use
of marijuana. And on the other hand, liberals have done just the
opposite.

The bottom
line, though, is this. When you allow politicians to bend the rules
of the Constitution – even for things you may support –
over a long period of time, sooner or later you’re going to
end up with politicians who feel that the rules don’t apply
at all. And, if we’re not there right now, we’re pretty
darn close.

EVERY ISSUE,
EVERY TIME

That’s
why we at the Tenth Amendment Center demand adherence to the Constitution
– Every Issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses. That
means that much of what the federal government does is unconstitutional,
including:

The Department
of Education, The Patriot Act, Federal Gun Laws and Regulations,
National Health Care Mandates, and something that’s been going
on since 1941, wars without a Congressional declaration of war from
Congress.

LIBERTY

From this we
can see that the Tenth Amendment is not about political parties.
It’s not about political ideologies. It’s not even about
political candidates. It’s about liberty. It was designed to
promote your liberty by strictly limiting the powers of the federal
government.

Over the past
year or so, I’ve been interviewed by mainstream media sources
literally dozens of times. And whether it’s Fox News, or CNN,
or the New York Times, the reporters invariably ask the same
question, “What political party do you support?” Each
time, I give them the same answer, “The Tenth Amendment Center
is a non-partisan think tank that supports the principles of strictly
limited constitutional government.”

They always
have virtually the same follow up question too – “what
about you? As the founder of the Center, what’s your political
background, what political party do you support?”

“None,”
I tell them. I don’t know if they believe me, but it’s
true.

I’m no
conservative, and I’m no liberal. I’m not a Democrat or
a Republican. And I’m not a green or a libertarian, or a socialist
or an anarchist. I’m not even an independent.

All I am is
me, and all I want is to live free.

Thank you….

This is
reprinted from the Tenth
Amendment Center.

March
3, 2010

Michael
Boldin [send him
mail] is the founder of the Tenth
Amendment Center.

The following is based on a speech at the first annual Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta, GA on February 26, 2010.

How can a “crazy” Californian and a “conservative” Georgian be friends? It’s simple – through the principles of ’98. In 1798, the John Adams administration signed into law that Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government or its officials. In practice, it was used to quell the freedom of speech in dissent against the sitting administration.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson responded:

“the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government”

But wait – that’s not all. He went on to say that all undelegated powers exercised by the federal government are “unathoritative, void and of no force.” And, that a “nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

NULLIFICATION?

There’s been plenty of people talking about nullification lately, but many people don’t know what it really means. I can think of no better way to define it than how my friend Derek Sheriff from the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center has done:

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.

Nullification is something that’s already happening around the country – and Derek explains the process:

Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.

At its very core, nullification is mass civil-disobedience to the federal government with the support of the state apparatus. It’s about “We the People” exercising our rights whether the politicians or judges in Washington D.C. want to give us “permission” to exercise those rights or not.

ROSCOE FILBURN

During the Great Depression, while millions of people were out of work or starving, the FDR administration required American farmers to restrict production of wheat in order to raise prices.

As a farmer, Roscoe Filburn was told he could plant a little over 10 acres of wheat, which he did grow and sell on the market. He also decided that it was in his best interest – possibly because he had less revenue due to the production limitations – to plant another 10 or so acres. But, the “excess” wheat grown was used at home to feed his livestock, among other things. He never sold it, so he saw this as being outside the scope of Congressional power to regulate “interstate commerce.”

What did the federal government do? The expected – they ordered Roscoe to destroy his crops and pay a fine. Think about that for a moment and you’ll really understand the evil of having too much power in too few hands. At a time when large numbers of people were starving, these thugs in government forced people to reduce production for the sake of raising prices. From this, it seems clear to me that corporate bailouts have been going on a long, long time in America.

Roscoe sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In Wickard v Filburn, the Court ruled against him and the result was that the Federal Government assumed a power that was new in the history of this country. It now had the power to control the growing and consuming of something that never left one’s back yard.

LOST LIBERTY

John Adams, who as we can see from his signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts, was no saint, did give us a great warning on the growth of government power. In 1775 he wrote, “liberty once lost, is lost forever.” He went on to explain that when the People allow government to gain power and restrict liberty, it will never voluntarily give that power back. Liberty given up to government power will never be returned to the people without a long and difficult struggle.

If we fast-forward to present times, we can see this principle at work.

ANGEL RAICH

In the 1990s, the People of California voted to legalize consumption of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Angel Raich, who has a huge cancerous tumor in her brain was told by her doctor and California law that using marijuana to relieve some of the pain associated with her cancer was acceptable.

The Feds don’t take too kindly to states passing laws in direct contravention to theirs. Marijuana, for example, is illegal on a federal level in all circumstances, and federal agencies have consistently said they don’t recognize state laws. You can probably guess what happened, right?

Federal agents destroyed Angel’s homegrown marijuana plants without much resistance. Like Roscoe before her, Angel sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2005, the Supreme Court once again ruled that growing and consuming a plant in one’s own back yard qualified as “interstate commerce.” And, because of that, the federal government was then authorized to control, regulate, or outright ban such activities under the threat of fine or prison.

Clarence Thomas, in his famous dissent, got it right when he wrote, “If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”

PARTISAN CONSTITUTIONALISTS?

The main problem we face is that much of the support for the 10th Amendment is little more than partisanship. For many years, conservatives have rightly railed against policies such as the ones that FDR used against Roscoe Filburn. But, at the same time, they’ve turned a blind eye to those same policies when used against Angel Raich and her use of marijuana. And on the other hand, liberals have done just the opposite.

The bottom line, though, is this. When you allow politicians to bend the rules of the Constitution – even for things you may support – over a long period of time, sooner or later you’re going to end up with politicians who feel that the rules don’t apply at all. And, if we’re not there right now, we’re pretty darn close.

EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME

That’s why we at the Tenth Amendment Center demand adherence to the Constitution – Every Issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses. That means that much of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, including:

The Department of Education, The Patriot Act, Federal Gun Laws and Regulations, National Health Care Mandates, and something that’s been going on since 1941, wars without a Congressional declaration of war from Congress.

LIBERTY

From this we can see that the Tenth Amendment is not about political parties. It’s not about political ideologies. It’s not even about political candidates. It’s about liberty. It was designed to promote your liberty by strictly limiting the powers of the federal government.

Over the past year or so, I’ve been interviewed by mainstream media sources literally dozens of times. And whether it’s Fox News, or CNN, or the New York Times, the reporters invariably ask the same question, “What political party do you support?” Each time, I give them the same answer, “The Tenth Amendment Center is a non-partisan think tank that supports the principles of strictly limited constitutional government.”

They always have virtually the same follow up question too – “what about you? As the founder of the Center, what’s your political background, what political party do you support?”

“None,” I tell them. I don’t know if they believe me, but it’s true.

I’m no conservative, and I’m no liberal. I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. And I’m not a green or a libertarian, or a socialist or an anarchist. I’m not even an independent.

All I am is me, and all I want is to live free.

Thank you….

This is reprinted from the Tenth Amendment Center.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

I’m under the impression that you consider the science behind global warming to be inaccurate, and that the efforts to promote it include hiding truth. A grand conspiracy, of sorts. On your TV show in November, 2009, you said:

Count them. There’s Jones, Mike, Keith, Gene and Caspar, whoever they are. Potentially deleting emails supposedly about supposed science. So why all the secrecy?

You went on:

“Deleting emails. Hiding declines. Incorrect Data. Inadequate systems. Redefining scientific peer reviews for their own uses. This is what appears to be going on behind the scenes. And literally trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us. If your gut said “wait a minute, this global warming thing, it sounds like a scam” – well, I think you’re seeing it now”

The whole story sounds like a massive conspiracy to give the government an excuse to pass cap and trade, to impose restrictions on business and individual choice, to aggrandize themselves with more money and power. It wouldn’t really surprise me.

That is what government does in the United States. In fact, it’s things like this that made me realize that neither Democrats or Republicans in D.C. had any respect for your freedom or for the Constitution. That was a driving force behind launching the Tenth Amendment Center, which I founded in mid-2006.

But, you know what? I’m not a detective, and I don’t have time to study the science, the clues, the mystery behind global warming or the global warming swindle as many people call it. So, if you had me on your TV show (sorry I wasn’t available when your producers asked last year, but I think my recommendation for a substitute worked out great!), and asked me:

“Michael – do you believe in this global warming scam, do you believe what the mainstream scientists are telling us about global warming – yes or no!?”

I’d have to answer this way:

“I’ve heard a lot of reports from reputable people on both sides of that issue. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that. What I do know is this, I don’t trust the government to tell me the truth.”

In response, would you then say that you're u201Cwriting me offu201D and u201Cwriting the Tenth Amendment Center offu201D because I haven't taken a position on this — and that a better source for state sovereignty information is now the Huffington Post?u201D

Read the rest of the article

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Around the country, twenty-two states are currently considering a bill known as the “Firearms Freedom Act.” This bill declares that guns, accessories, and ammunition made within a state, sold within that state and kept in that state are not subject to federal laws or regulations under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution.

Montana and Tennessee passed a Firearms Freedom Act into law in 2009, and a number of states are moving that direction in the 2010 legislative session. In South Carolina, where a Firearms Freedom Act was also introduced in 2009, some representatives have taken things a step further.

NULLIFYING GUN REGISTRATIONS

Introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly this week is House Bill 4509 (H4509), which if passed, would make law that “no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.”

No caveat for regulations under the commerce clause. No caveat for types of firearms either. This bill says NO to all gun registrations — period.

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts:

“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government”

and

“where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”

In short, nullification means this: The state is taking a position that a particular federal law is unconstitutional, and thus, the law in question is void and inoperative, or "non-effective," within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

But nullification is much more than just mere rhetoric. To nullify a federal law in practice requires active resistance to it by the people and the state government.

INTERPOSITION

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in 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.

Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws — that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are u201Cduty bound to interposeu201D or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

H4509 includes strong language to assert this principle:

Federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution by requiring registration of the purchasers of firearms and ammunition, and these requirements violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people

(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.

(C) Any person violating the provisions of this subsection (B) is guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both.

A GROWING MOVEMENT

Supporters of such legislation point to laws passed by other states that have effectively nullified federal laws around the country. Fourteen states have now defied federal laws on marijuana. And, two-dozen states have refused to comply with the Bush-era Real ID Act, rendering that 2005 law virtually null and void today.

Guns, national ID cards, and weed might be just the early stages of a quickly growing movement to nullify other federal laws seen as outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. In states around the country this year, bills have been proposed to defy or nullify federal laws on health care, use of national guard troops overseas, legal tender laws, cap and trade, and even the process of collecting federal income taxes.

The final goal? It’s a long way off — a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.

Michael Boldin [send him mail] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Introduced
in the State Senates of both Colorado and South Dakota last week
is a bill known as the “Firearms Freedom Act.” If passed,
the bill would make state law that “any firearm, firearm accessory,
or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in
the state and that remains within the borders of the state is not
subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration,
under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

This now makes
Firearms Freedom Acts already passed in Montana and Tennessee, and
currently introduced in these 21 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

According to
Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and author
of the original bill that was introduced in Montana, “It’s
likely that FFAs will be introduced soon in West Virginia, New Mexico,
Idaho, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and maybe elsewhere”

Read
the rest of the article

January
26, 2010

The Tenth Amendment
codifies in law that “We the People” of the several states
created the federal government to be our agent for certain enumerated
purposes only – those powers delegated to the federal government
in the Constitution.

An honest reading
of the Constitution with an original understanding of the Founders
and Ratifiers makes it quite clear that the federal government has
no constitutional authority to override state laws on marijuana.

All three branches
of the federal government, however, have interpreted (and re-interpreted)
the commerce clause of the Constitution to authorize them to engage
in this activity, even though there’s supposedly no “legal”
commerce in the plant. At best, these arguments are dubious; at
worst an intentional attack on the Constitution and your liberty.

Currently,
13
states have legalized marijuana for medicinal use, and soon,
New Jersey may join them.

Today, both
houses of the New Jersey legislature voted in favor of a Medical
Marijuana bill – approving use of the plant for medicinal purposes
in direct defiance of federal law which states that it’s illegal
in every circumstance. The State Assembly voted in favor, 48-14,
and the Senate approved by a vote of 25-13. The bills will now be
reconciled and sent to Governor Corzine, who’s already stated
that he’d sign it into law.

Read
the rest of the article

January
13, 2010

NH Legislators
again raise the bar for the 10th
Amendment Movement – felony charges proposed for federal
agents violating gun rights in New Hampshire

Pre-filed for
the 2010 legislative session in New Hampshire, House Bill 1285 (HB1285)
seeks to “exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition
manufactured in New Hampshire from federal law and regulation.”

Introduced
by State Rep. Dan Itse, the bill currently has 5 other co-sponsors,
including 10-4
pledge signer, Carol Vita. (h/t NHLiberty.org)

While the bill’s
title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do
with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal
government. It states, in part:

The Tenth
Amendment to the Constitution for the United States guarantees
to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal
government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the State
and people of New Hampshire certain powers as they were understood
at the time that New Hampshire ratified the Bill of Rights, particularly
the Tenth Amendment in 1790. The guaranty of those powers is a
matter of contract between the State and people of New Hampshire
and the several States comprising the United States as of the
time that the compact was agreed upon and adopted by New Hampshire
and the several States comprising the United States.

The regulation
of inter-state commerce was delegated by the People of the
Several States to the federal government in the US Constitution.
Since the regulation of intra-state commerce was not delegated
to the federal government, this authority, as codified in law by
the 10th Amendment, remains with the State governments or the People
themselves.

HB1285 includes
this principle in its text:

a personal
firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured
commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within
the state of New Hampshire is not subject to federal law or taxation,
or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority
of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by
the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate
commerce.

The authority
of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials
does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories,
and ammunition made in New Hampshire from those materials. Firearms
accessories that are imported into New Hampshire from another
state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate
commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under
interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction
with a firearm in New Hampshire.

Unlike many
other states that are considering Firearms Freedom Acts (FFA), the
New Hampshire legislation includes official sanctions on any state
or federal official violating the law, if adopted.

State Agents:

Any public
servant of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2
that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute,
rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon
a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is
manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that
remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a
class A misdemeanor.

Federal Agents:

Any official,
agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or
employee of a corporation providing services to the government
of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act,
order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the
United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or
ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New
Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall
be guilty of a class B felony. (emphasis added)

NULLIFICATION

Some supporters
of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law
would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take
their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see
as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Read
the rest of the article

January
4, 2010

~ Thomas Jefferson

For the past
few days, I’ve received loads of emails urging me to get active
regarding the healthcare vote – most of which had a subject
line similar to: “Last Chance to Stop National Healthcare!”

Well, if you
believe the only way to protect your rights is by begging federal
politicians to do what you want, then these emails are certainly
right. The vote went as expected, and so will the next.

So if you think
marching
on D.C. or calling your Representatives, or threating to “throw
the bums out” in 2010 or 2012 or 20-whatever, is going to further
the cause of the Constitution and your liberty – you might
as well get your shackles on now. Your last chance has come and
gone.

But, those
of you who visit
this site regularly already know that the Senate’s health
care vote is far from the end of things – and you also know
that even when it goes into effect (which I assume some version
will), it’s still not the end of the road for your freedom.

The real way
to resist
DC is not by begging politicians and judges in Washington to
allow us to exercise our rights…it’s to exercise our rights
whether they want to give us “permission” to or not.

Nullification
– state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws –
is the way forward.

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, not a law
as far as that state is concerned.

It’s peaceful,
effective, and has a long history in the American tradition. It’s
been invoked in support of free speech, in opposition to war and
fugitive slave laws, and more. Read
more on this history here.

Regarding nullification
and health care, there’s already a
growing movement right now. Led by Arizona, voters in a number
of states may get a chance to approve State Constitutional Amendments
in 2010 that would effectively ban national health care in their
states. Our sources here at the Tenth Amendment Center indicate
to us that we should expect to see 20–25
states consider such legislation in 2010.

Read
the rest of the article

December
29, 2009

In 2010, residents
of Arizona will be voting on a State Constitutional Amendment
that would let them effectively opt out of any proposed national
health care plan.

Legislatures
in Florida,
Michigan,
Ohio,
and Pennsylvania
are also considering similar State Constitutional Amendments.

And now, Missouri
is joining them. According to a report
in The Missourian, "Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O’Fallon,
pre-filed a bill Dec. 1 that, if approved by voters, would effectively
put a halt on any national health care legislation. Davis said her
intent was to give voters a way to protect themselves."

FREEDOM
TO PARTICIPATE

The bill, HJR48,
"Proposes a constitutional amendment which would prohibit compelling
a person to participate in any health care system."

It states:

"To preserve
the freedom of citizens of this state to provide for their health
care, no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly or through
penalties or fines, any person, employer, or health care provider
to participate in any health care system. A person or employer may
pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required
to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health
care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment
for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay
penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or
employer for lawful health care services. Subject to reasonable
and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options,
the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care
systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule."

NULLIFICATION:
A HISTORY LESSON

The principle
behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long
history in the American tradition. 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, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Early nullification
movements began with the Virginia
and Kentucky
Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that the people of the states,
as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal
government had overstepped its constitutional bounds – to the
point of ignoring federal laws.

Read
the rest of the article

December
15, 2009

While the bill’s
title focuses solely federal gun regulations, it has far more to
do with the 10th Amendment’s mandate that powers not delegated
to the federal government are “reserved to the states, respectively,
or to the people.” It states:

Amendment
X of the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the states
and their people all powers not granted to the federal government
elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people
of Missouri certain powers as they were understood at the time that
Missouri was admitted to statehood. The guarantee of those powers
is a matter of contract between the state and people of Missouri
and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United
States was agreed upon and adopted by Missouri and the United States

Amendment
II of the Constitution of the United States reserves to the people
the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at
the time that Missouri was admitted to statehood, and the guarantee
of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people
of Missouri and the United States as of the time that the compact
with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Missouri and
the United States

Some supporters
of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law
would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take
their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see
as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Firearms Freedom
Acts have already passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and have
been introduced in a number of other states around the country.
(Click
here to see the full list.)

There’s
been no lack of controversy surrounding these laws, either. The
Tenth Amendment Center recently
reported on the ATF’s position that such laws don’t matter:

The Federal
Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it
issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’
in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature.
ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal
law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Constitutional
historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed
from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:

“Their
view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience
of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between
state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.”

“This
is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding
on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that
federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it
doesn’t suit them.”

Read
the rest of the article

December
9, 2009

The latest
to join the FFA movement? Kentucky. Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative
session, HB87
seeks to “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating
to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in
Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify
that these items are exempt from federal law”

While the FFA’s
title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do
with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal
government. The bills in state houses contain language such as the
following:

“federal
laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm
accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state]
and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation
stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory,
or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that
can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts
imported into this state.”

NULLIFICATION

Some supporters
of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law
would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take
their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see
as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

The principle
behind such legislation is nullification,
which has a long history in the American tradition. 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, not a law
as far as the state is concerned.

All across
the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar
legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed
Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care
will
go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Fourteen states now have some
form of medical
marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws
which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And,
massive state nullification
of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.

Read
the rest of the article

November
13, 2009

When a state
u201Cnullifies” a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in
question is void and inoperative, or u201Cnon-effective,” within
the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far
as that state is concerned.

While the media
of late tends to focus on the new crop of states resisting DC with
legislation on firearms
and health
care, they almost always miss, or ignore, what I consider to
be some of the greatest and most effective state resistance to federal
power – marijuana activism.

According to
our friends at NORML,
there are now 13 states who are openly resisting federal laws on
medical marijuana. And now my home state of California is on the
verge of taking it to the next level – full legalization.

According to
a
report in the SF Chronicle:

Two prominent
East Bay marijuana advocates got clearance from the state today
to try to put a pot-legalization initiative on the November 2010
California ballot.

This isn’t
your run-of-the-mill “medical marijuana” bill – that’s
already legal in CA. If approved by voters, the bill would:

allow anyone
over 21 to possess or grow marijuana for personal use. It would
allow each local government to decide whether to tax and regulate
marijuana sales.

Read
the rest of the article

October
3, 2009

First of all,
thank you for allowing me a few moments to be here with you today
– it’s an honor to be able to speak with you, even if
it’s from the other side of the country where I am here in
Los Angeles, California.

As the founder
of the Tenth Amendment Center, I’m often asked – why the
Tenth Amendment? Why do we need it? And I truly believe that’s
just what people like you and I were asking back in the time when
this country was founded, too.

But, the answer
isn’t complex. It isn’t difficult. It’s simple and
it’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 that’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.

Thank
You For Supporting LRC With Your Online Purchases

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 didn’t create itself – and the state
governments didn’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 couldn’t have been more clearly
stated than it was in the Federalist Papers, #22. And here’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 wasn’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 that’s the way it was at the beginning – and
that’s the way it is today.

Read
the rest of the article

August
25, 2009