Constitutional Tender Act Gets Georgia Hearing

On Monday, March 8, 2011, a hearing was held in the Georgia House Financial Institutions & Services Subcommittee (a Banks & Banking Committee subcommittee) on HB 3, the Constitutional Tender Act.

Testimony in favor of the bill was given by Rep. Bobby FranklinDr. Bill Greene, who authored the bill. There was no testimony in opposition to the bill given.

Watch it:

HB 3 would return the State of Georgia to adherence to the U.S. Constitution’s legal tender provisions. Specifically, the U.S. Constitution declares in Article I, Section 10 that “no State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”. This means that no State can make something a “tender in payment” (which means they cannot “make something an offer as payment”) for any debts, which would include debts owed by and to the State.

Details

Idaho House Rejects Federal Control of Health Care

Yesterday, by a vote of 50-17-3, the Idaho house of representatives passed House Bill 298 (HB298), what some pundits are calling the “son of nullification” bill.

The bill states:

The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, require employers to provide health insurance coverage to their employees, determine the content of health insurance policies, or limit the construction or expansion of hospital or medical facilities or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment.

Earlier this legislative session, a similar bill with stronger wording (specifically including language to make null and void the Patient Protection and affordable care act), passed the House by a wide margin but was rejected by a Senate committee and not allowed a floor vote.

In response, Representative Vito Barbieri and 21 co-sponsors introduced this new bill in an effort to get some legislation passed to combat federal health care mandates on the state level. The focus of HB298 is noncompliance with “discretionary provisions” in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — those portions of the 2010 federal law not specifically required or which don’t take effect before June 30, 2012.

Details

State Level Solutions in Alaska?

From the office of Alaska Rep Bob Lynn

Rep. Bob Lynn (R-Anchorage) has sponsored HB 210, a bill that would enable all active duty warriors in our U.S. Armed Forces to be treated as adults. HB 210 permits active duty service members under age 21 to consume alcoholic beverages and use tobacco products in Alaska.

“Alaska has more residents in the military per capita than any other state, and we have the second highest number of veterans,” Lynn said. “We should be leading the way when it comes to military and veteran-friendly policies, but once again federal overreach precludes us from pursuing common sense solutions at the state level.”

Details

New Hampshire House passes Tenth Amendment resolution

The New Hampshire House passed a Tenth Amendment resolution on Wednesday.

HCR0019 affirms that the U.S. Constitution constrains the federal government to specific enumerated powers and that all other power remains with the state and the people.

I. Therefore, words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument; and

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

The resolution goes on to specifically summarize the scope of federal authority, citing specific articles and sections of the Constitution, highlighting their limits.

The bill passed the House 242-109 and will now move to the Senate for consideration.

Details

Towards Tyranny or Away From It?

cross-posted from the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center We can be moving towards tyranny or away from it.  No other choice exists. Bush Obama Afghanistan, Iraq Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya No Child Left Behind Race to the Top Medicare Part-D Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act S-chip Guantanamo Bay with indefinite detention Guantanamo Bay with indefinite detention,…

Details

Health Freedom: Decentralization in Action

Podcast: Play in new window | Download Michael Boldin on the Robert Scott Bell Show, live from the Health Freedom Expo in Long Beach, CA. Writes Robert: Michael Boldin joins me at the Health Freedom Expo for a very special interview on the Constitution, health freedom, the undelacared war on Libya and nullification. Also: Dr.…

Details

Utah puts the Fiat Dollar on Notice

Earlier this month, we reported on the sound money bill which the Utah legislature passed. Last Friday, Governor Herbert signed this bill into law.

The core component of this new law is the legalized recognition of gold and silver coins (issued by the federal government) as legal currency within the state. They may be used voluntarily by consenting parties, and rather than recognizing the face value of the coin (a horribly distorted metric of the coin’s worth), the market price of the gold or silver content is recognized as its value.

Details

Obama, Levin wrong on war powers

The Constitution is the set of rules that governs the federal government.  It’s authorized to exercise only those powers delegated to it, and nothing more.

Obama would have us believe that the decision on whether or not to start a war rests on his decision alone.  Rob Natelson, one of the nation’s leading experts on the framing and adoption of the Constitution, shows us in his new article that this view is little more than a crock.

READ IT HERE:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/28/obamas-libyan-operations-are-unconstitutional/

Sadly, though, Obama and the elite left aren’t the only ones that hold this view.  Many prominent conservatives do too…and they’ve been advocating such a position for a long, long time.

Mark Levin is possibly the best example.  A champion of limited government for many conservatives, he has betrayed the constitution for many years by pushing the Obama line…that this country should go to war not on the decision of the People of the country (through their representative) but instead, on the decision of one person alone.

King George would’ve agreed.  And Joe Stalin would’ve jumped for joy at his triumph over limited, constitutional government.

Details

NJ Nullification Project and Tom Woods Event

Our NJ Nullification project is moving out of development and into practice.                The purpose is to educate the citizens of NJ on State Nullification and why it must be used to protect our liberty.  Our Legislators are very much part of this endeavor. Partners in this effort include Tea Party and 912 Groups who are equally determined to spread this message statewide. 

This effort involves nullification power point presentations to groups around NJ,  use of media including Youtube videos, BlogTalk Radio and all other forms of communication.   Your voice is extremely important in helping us spread the word.  Please do what you can to help us promote State Nullification by contacting your legislators, calling radio shows, writing to local newspapers, etc….

Details

Mark Levin Wrong on War Powers

Yes, I’m as shocked as you are.  Let’s go down the list of fallacies:

“We’ve been involved in many military engagements; we’ve had very few declarations of war. And I’m including military engagements that were involved in by people you consider Founders of this nation. It’s because they’ve never, ever, required as a requisite—to defending this country, or even certain military actions—of getting Congress’ approval.”

Totally misleading.  Everybody knows we’ve had few declarations of war. But Congress has also authorized countless lesser military actions — including the ones Levin obviously has in mind when he refers to “people you consider Founders of this nation.”  Adams did not confront the French without congressional approval; same for Jefferson and the Barbary pirates.  I’ve explained this.

“The language was originally ‘Congress shall make war.’ The framers rejected that. And instead replaced ‘make’ with ‘declare.’”

I’ve covered this, too.  It doesn’t even come close to meaning what Levin wants it to.

Details