by Michael Boldin, LR

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 Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed.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.

by Karen De Coster

Nolan Finley is a very conventional columnist for the Detroit News. Nolan has just published a very good column (for the most part) on the Tenth Amendment movement. However, he just has to get in that one little comment that separates him from the radical states’ rights movement (radical … meaning scholarly and “no surrender”):

Critics see the Tea Party’s failure to acquiesce to this reality as evidence of its outdated mindset. The kindest jabs find it amusingly quaint that its followers would read the Constitution and actually think it still means what it says. The more vicious connect the revulsion to an overpowering central government to arguments in favor of slavery and against civil rights. Once again, the attacks go, racists are hiding behind states’ rights.

All I can say to that is, “Wow.” I have been involved in the radical libertarian-freedom movement for twelve years in the sense that I’ve become known, and before that, about fifteen years before anyone knew anything about me. I have never found one states’ rights person in favor of slavery. There are groups of extremely racist hatemongers, and they are self-contained within their own very small bands of obscurity that revolve around online forums and philistine newsletters. They are a speck on the radar map, and they have no voice and no impact whatsoever.

Why is it that every tediously conventional writer who addresses this topic (Tenth Amendment/secession) feels the need to make that very visible distinction: “I am not a racist.” C’mon Nolan, dust off the cobwebs and get with the times. Otherwise, Nolan has written a good, introductory column for the general masses. He says:

Advocates of an ever-expanding central government have found good allies in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which has been used to justify seizure of just about all economic activity, and in its call for Congress to provide for the “general welfare.”

General welfare is a wide avenue. It can easily be twisted to give the government the right to impose any mandate, take over any function, ban any behavior in the name of the common good.

Follow that string to the end and Congress can, under the general welfare guise, collectivize any of the rights guaranteed to individuals.

See Michael Boldin’s Tenth Amendment Center for the real thing.

by Patrick Krey, NA

The “Principles of 98,” as they came to be known, are rarely discussed in modern history lectures even though these are integral to understanding how our federal Constitution was intended to function. These are the principles of state interposition or nullification that assert that if the federal government fails to check itself through one of its three branches, then it would be up to the states to rein in the feds.

The main basis for the theory is that the states created the national government when they joined the compact and not the other way around. The states therefore retained the power to judge for themselves the constitutionality of federal laws and reserved the right to refuse to enforce them if they went beyond their constitutionally delegated powers. As a matter of fact, nullification was used even before the implementation of the Constitution when the Colonists nullified laws made by the British Monarchy. The concept of a state nullifying a federal law simply means that a state refuses to comply with the law or permit its enforcement within state boundaries.

The man widely regarded as the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, described just how a federal system would work in his essay Federalist No. 51. Madison, encouraging his fellow countrymen to ratify the newly drafted Constitution, described a system of horizontal as well as vertical checks and balances between the federal and state governments — a system known as federalism. “Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

Madison, joined by Thomas Jefferson, would later go on to expand upon this in the famous Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. The federal government had recently passed the blatantly unconstitutional and shameful Alien and Sedition Acts to silence and intimidate political enemies. Those despicable acts were instituted by advocates of unwritten constitutional power and a more robust central government. Both Jefferson and Madison argued that the states constitutionally had the right to refuse not only to comply with such unconstitutional actions of the federal government, but also to actively prevent the feds from enforcing them within their state boundaries.

These visionaries and their resolutions gave a voice to a peaceful revolution of constitutional principles that would govern this great nation for years to come. Many states have in fact utilized state nullification to check the federal government throughout the history of our Republic. From the Fugitive Slave Act to unpopular tariffs, states did indeed nullify federal laws they found to be unconstitutional.

Nullification has started to be mentioned in the news, as states have once more started to utilize the practice to resist federal overreaching. Many states have either passed or proposed legislation or amendments to their state constitutions that nullify federal laws in the areas of firearms, medical marijuana, and healthcare, to name just a few.

by Russell D. Longcore, DumpDC

The US Federal Government is a cancer that has affected nearly every organ and cell in the body of our nation. Trying to get rid of the cancer may very likely kill the host, just like chemotherapy or radiation do.

There is virtually no possibility of getting the citizens of any state to agree to secede in sufficient numbers that will move the lawmakers of that state to action. The biggest reason is that there are too many citizens of any state that feed at the Federal trough. If those folks saw that secession would mean the end of their jobs, benefits or incomes, they would fight secession with all their energy.

Here is a short list of people who are either Federal employees directly, or whose jobs are directly affected by Federal money:

• State government at every level, from Governor to dogcatcher, that receive and spend Federal money
• Federal bureaucracy personnel: there are tens of thousands of them in Federal offices including managers, IT personnel, secretaries, janitors, security guards, drivers, inspectors, etc.
• IRS personnel
• I.T. personnel
• Accountants: most accountants would not have work to do without the Federal tax code.
• Retirees: anyone who gets a Social Security check or Medicare benefits.
• Pensioners: see retirees. Most get both.
• Medicaid recipients: the poor who get their medical treatment from Uncle Sam.
• Military personnel: active duty would be unemployed. Retirees could lose pensions.
• Tax Attorneys
• Regulatory compliance attorneys
• Bankers: without the Federal Reserve and fractional banking, most people in banking would be out of a job.
• Post office workers: a seceding state would likely privatize this business.
• Law enforcement personnel: lots of Federal agencies have workers with badges and guns.
• College students with Federally backed loans or grants
• Mortgagees with Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae-backed loans
• Hospitals who accept Federal healthcare patients
• Doctors who accept Federal healthcare patients
• Nurses working for those doctors
• Hospital personnel: RNs, techs, orderlies, cafeteria workers, janitors.
• Federal Judges and their staffs
• Grant writers and grant recipients
• Colleges and universities: Huge staffs directly affected by college loans.
• Public schools
• Construction companies building and maintaining Federal structures
• Any company that gets Defense Department contracts of any kind
• Federal politicians and their staffs
• Social Security office workers: secretaries, inspectors, regulators, managers, executives
• Army Corps of Engineers
• Churches and non-profit organizations might lose their tax-exempt status and have to pay taxes.
• Farmers: some get Federal subsidies that would vanish.
• Manufacturers and suppliers of any product or service you can imagine that goes to the Federal government
• Lobbyists
• Property management companies that lease to Federal agencies
• Welfare office workers
• Media (radio, TV, internet, print media): all get advertising revenue from gov’t.
• And most of the workers above have families that rely on their incomes.
• And most of those workers and their families spend their incomes in businesses that rely on their incomes.

This list could go on and on if I thought about it some more. There are likely some obvious people I’ve omitted. But this list alone should give you a flavor of just how much the Federal government has infected America on every level.

Now…consider this wild card.

The inevitable economic collapse occurs. For some reason, the dollar begins its unavoidable hyperinflation because the worldwide economy collapses. The Dow Jones, Standard & Poors, and the NASDAQ all lose at least 50% of their value. The worldwide bond market collapses, and foreign/institutional boldholders refuse to accept dollars as payment. Banks close all over the USA en masse. Catastrophic layoffs begin at all levels of the economy. Unemployment soars to 40 or 50%.

The Federal Government panics…even more than they are panicking today…and starts laying off Federal workers. Their tax revenue is off by 50%.

OK…got the scenario? Now, at every level of society, from Washington to Walla Walla, every person has been affected by the collapse.

When the people on the list above aren’t getting paid anyway…or are getting paid with dollars that are becoming worthless…and the seriousness of the situation sinks in to their minds and stomachs…secession will finally make sense.

As I’ve said before, the number one job of the secessionist movements today it to educate the populace about the benefits of secession. The number two job of the secessionist movements is to begin to create a stable of the best people to occupy crucial positions in the state so it can secede. The politicians likely won’t help.

Albert Einstein said “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” I say that we cannot solve our problems with the same PEOPLE that created them.

The politicians of today must be swept aside to make room for those who will bring the solutions to the table. What of politicians who have a change of heart, and join the movement? My opinion is that they should be “quarantined” and watched closely, and not allowed to participate in the solutions without constant supervision.

The secessionist movements all over the USA must acknowledge the near impossibility of pre-collapse secession, and devote themselves to the post-collapse secession model. Anything else is Tea-Party rah-rah hype just to raise money for their coffers.

Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

from 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”

South Dakota’s Senate Bill 89 (SB89) was introduced by State Senator Rhoden, and has 22 Senate co-sponsors and 44 House co-sponsors.

Colorado’s Senate Bill 092 (SB10-092) was introduced by State Senator Schultheis and has 9 Senate co-sponsors and 7 House co-sponsors.

CLICK HERE – to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Tracking Page

UPDATE, 01-26-10

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.

But nullification is more than just a mere rhetorical statement or a resolution affirming the position of the legislature. To effectively nullify a federal law requires state action to prevent federal enforcement within the state.

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 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 “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

In similar proposals, some legislators around the country have begun adding penalties – ranging from misdemeanors to felony charges – for federal agents, too.  Other legislators have already introduced what’s known as the “State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act” which would require the state to interpose against the IRS and withhold tax funds from D.C.  Click here to read more about this proposal.

Even without such specific penalties listed, I see this as an important step in the right direction.

Hat Tip: National Expositor