This Sunday, Bryce Shonka and myself will be speaking about the 10th Amendment and Nullification to a group in Woodland Hills, CA (just north of Malibu). Also confirmed for the event are a number of 2010 candidates, along with Senate candidate, Chuck DeVore.
Personally, I can’t wait until December…not just for my birthday, but because I’ll be happy when all this election pandering is over. The last 100 years or longer have proven to us that it doesn’t matter who gets elected to D.C., it doesn’t matter what political party is in power, and it doesn’t matter who the president it – the power of the government grows year in and year out.
Voting the bums out just gives us new bums. Period.
But, it will be interesting to hear Chuck speak. He flat-out refused to sign our 10-4 pledge, something that JD Hayworth (challenging John McCain), John Dennis (challenging Nancy Pelosi), Ron Ramsey (TN Lt. Governor) and many others have signed – on the grounds that “the oath of office is all he needs to sign”
The problem though is pretty clear – politicians take that “oath” all the time, and it means nothing. And the proof is in the $3+ trillion budget in Washington D.C. right now. That’s why we have the pledge – to find out who REALLY stands up for the Constitution as the Founders and Ratifiers gave it to us, and not as the politicians and courts have twisted it to mean.
Here’s a little more on the event, from RedCounty:
On Sunday, the Ventura County Tea Party will join Senate Candidate Chuck DeVore for a lecture on the amendment, which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The idea of federalism was a pretty good one. States would be sovereign, linked together by a federal government that had jurisdiction over federal courts, an army, interstate commerce, and anything else outside state jurisdiction. The states would be free to largely make their own policy, and thrive or decline on the merits of those policies. Should states enact popular laws, other states would be incentivized to do the same to keep their citizens. Should a state enact unpopular laws, citizens would be compelled to flee into a state that better served their interests. States would, in effect, compete with each other through their policies.
Good public policy would spread, and bad public policy would recede. Each state would be a laboratory.
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)
- Integrity and the Constitution: President Madison’s 1817 Veto - February 6, 2016
- South Dakota House Votes 57-11 to Legalize Commercial Hemp Farming and Production - February 4, 2016
- Is State Legalization the Same as Federal Prohibition? In a Word, No. - February 4, 2016