How should we interpret the Constitution?

How should we interpret the Constitution? written by Michael Maharrey of the Kentucky Tenth Amendment Center was featured recently on the Tenth Amendment Center’s main site. The audio version is also available through the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center Podcast. Give it a listen and also consider subscribing using iTunes to the podcast as well! It’s…

Details

Slavery? Really?

The president has been invoking references to slavery to get his “base” ginned up for the November election. I find it extremely insulting to the people that actually lived in slavery to compare a grass roots political movement, grounded in financial prudence and limited government (Tea Party) to the struggles of slavery. He is minimizing the reality of slavery by comparing the plight of the today’s “poor”, youth, and unemployed. Is he suggesting that the people that are about to clean his clock at the polls are trying to return the country to slavery? I don’t get it? It is more like the people the president is fear mongering against are the people freeing people from the bondage of government programs. The true source of today’s “slavery”.

Details

Media Alert: Celebrating the 10th on 10-10-10

Our latest media release – picked up by Forbes this morning – please read and share! http://www.forbes.com/feeds/prnewswire/2010/10/04/prnewswire201010040815PR_NEWS_USPR_____PH75193.html “The states don’t have to obey unconstitutional federal laws,” said Michael Boldin, executive director of the Center. “And that means, for example, no national health care mandates, no department of education, no bank bailouts, and even no federal…

Details

It’s Time to Nullify Federal Court Decisions

As a supporter of laws like SB1070 and other state and local efforts to curb illegal immigration I am disturbed by the trend that federal courts are now weeding through state laws and deciding if they are constitutional or not. Whether or not you support state efforts to curb illegal immigration you have to agree that the courts have lost all prudence in this matter. They now want to chop through state laws and decide what is permissible for them to have and not have.

Pardon me but don’t the courts only have one function and that is to weigh the facts and punish those who break the law. The way a court system works is that the government brings the accused before it where they weigh the facts presented by the state in order to decide if the accused broke the law. They then meet out punishment based on what the law says.

Notice I said they don’t decide punishment because that has already been decided by the law. In fact, everything the court does is decided by law. The courts have this power because of the constitution and the same constitution gives them the power to judge the law as well as the facts. This is stated in Article III section 2 of the constitution.

Details

NY Times Alarmed: Tea Party Reading Unapproved Texts

Thanks to Bud Bronstein for this piece by Kate Zernike from the NY Times, “Movement of the Moment Looks to Long-Ago Texts.” Catch the ideological presentism. Instead of just reading the latest approved tomes and today’s issue of the Times, people are learning from “obscure” old books by dead people.

The Tea Party “has resurrected once-obscure texts by dead writers — in some cases elevating them to best-seller status — to form a kind of Tea Party canon. Recommended by Tea Party icons like Ron Paul and Glenn Beck, the texts are being quoted everywhere from protest signs to Republican Party platforms.” The idea of a movement animated by ideas rather than leaders is just right. BastiatHayek, and Mises are magnificent, and also just what one would expect from a movement born in Ron Paulism.

Details

Consistently supporting liberty and the Tenth Amendment

One of the main obstacles to getting the “tenther” movement and the message of freedom to spread is that too many people claim they are for freedom on some issues (guns, taxes), but simultaneously claim to be anti-freedom on others (marijuana, gay-marriage).

Our two-party political system has raised people to believe that based on which party you subscribe to, you are supposed to advocate for either the federal government to get out of the way in regard to things that you like and to get in the way of people doing things that you don’t like. This is the essence of the problem. To truly embrace freedom and the tenth amendment movement, people need to start opposing federal involvement in EVERY area that is not authorized under the Constitution and not only in the activities which they personally disapprove.

For example, I know many republicans who constantly decry government interference in gun ownership and business, but practically BEG for it when it comes to banning gay marriage and drug use. The same goes for the other side; I know many democrats who say that government needs to get out of the way when it comes to marijuana and gays in the military, but they decry any attempt to lift the federal ban on abortion and/or repeal federal gun laws. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Details

Are “Anchor Babies” Constitutional?

The concept of “anchor babies” refers to those whose parents are illegal immigrants into the United States and have a baby on this soil. That baby then inherits full citizenship and even the right later, as an adult, to sponsor his/her own illegal parents in their quest for citizenship. Is this practice Constitutional?

For the casual reader the amendment seems to validate such: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The debate for or against the practice of allowing citizenship for babies of illegals born in the U.S. rages on with virtually no one going to the source of the alleged authority—the crafters of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, architect of the 14th Amendment, actually structured the Amendment (one of two defining the legal status of freed slaves after the Civil War, the other being the 13th which gave them freedom) to prevent that very interpretation. He said: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

Details