New Hampshire to Review Federal Financial Control of our State Sovereignty

HB 590 passed the House 228 – 111; it calls for a committee to review state participation in federal grant-in-aid programs. Considering that over 50% of the State budget and laws associated with that spending is controlled by the Federal government; this is a prudent first step to shine some light on an area of financial Sovereignty for the State.

In a recent town hall meeting a lady was explaining to me that if we as a State simply participated in more Federal programs we would get more Federal money and be like those States who get back 2 and 3 dollars for every dollar we sent to Washington D.C. instead of the 85 cents on the dollar that we get back now.

Unfortunately a portion of those Federal programs must be paid for by the State budget, and in the process we must make State laws that comply with the requirements to participate in those programs; the Federal government can change the rules any time they like and we are forced to comply or leave the program. The Federal government has been known on occasions to create programs that get the people hooked on a social service just to remove Federal funding later and leave the State holding the bag or explaining to the citizens why we have to cut the program; in other cases they leverage existing grants to demand we participate in unrelated programs and spend our own money doing so.


Tennessee Passes Health Care Freedom Act

On Monday, the Tennessee Health Care Freedom Act cleared its last hurdle in the Tennessee General Assembly.  The House voted 70 to 27 to pass the legislation, following on the heels of the Senate passage of SB0079 on February 23.  This bill provides vital protections to Tennesseans who choose not to comply with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed by Congress last year.   The Tennessee Health Care Freedom Act states:

It is declared that the public policy of this state, consistent with our constitutionally recognized and inalienable right of liberty, is that every person within this state is and shall be free to choose or to decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty.

It is declared that the public policy of this state, consistent with our constitutionally recognized and inalienable right of liberty, is that every person within this state has the right to purchase health insurance or to refuse to purchase health insurance. The government may not interfere with a citizen’s right to purchase health insurance or with a citizen’s right to refuse to purchase health insurance. The government may not enact a law that would restrict these rights or that would impose a form of punishment for exercising either of these rights. Any law to the contrary shall be void ab initio.

The bill will be heading to Governor Bill Haslam’s desk shortly.


Rick Perry 1, Obama 0

EDITOR’S NOTE: Bernie Quigley will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! New Hampshire. Get tickets and info here – – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS


. . . states rights, states rights, states rights . . . !
– Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, at the first Tea Party event on April 15, 2009

To put it simply, the most astonishing thing that has happened these past two years is that the states have suddenly seen, as if through a glass darkly, that they do not have to do what the federal government tells them to do. Consider the consequences. The idea seemed incomprehensible when it was first presented up here in northern New England five years ago. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s truly shocked comment when she was told she couldn’t just do anything she wanted was, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Today, the Supreme Court faces state sovereignty challenges which promise to shake the nation.


Et tu, Heritage?

The Heritage Foundation is opposed to state nullification. The peons have evidently latched onto an idea that has not been approved for them in advance by either National Review or the New Republic, so it is time for a ritual scolding. Why, didn’t you know, citizen, that if you think a federal law is unconstitutional we can change that law? Happens all the time! All. The. Time. And we have courts, too, which have done a splendid job restraining the institution that employs them. What kind of crank could be unsatisfied with this?

Since I’m getting things together for the first lecture in my online U.S. history course for the Mises Academy tonight, I don’t have time for the usual point-by-point reply. But I don’t need one. I see almost nothing here that isn’t already addressed in my standard reply to objections.

A few highlights, though:


Legislative Alert! NJ vs TSA

CLICK HERE – to track legislation rejecting TSA scanners, searches, etc.


In a previous post, I had referred to New Jersey as DC’s most willing crony State, and had challenged the Legislature and the People to prove me wrong. I’m not one to count my chickens before they hatch, but three bills currently under consideration by two New Jersey State Senate committees may be the first few steps in doing that. Whether or not they are depends greatly on the amount of pressure put on our elected officials in Trenton, especially in an election year.

Each individual bill is designed to address different aspects of the abuse of power by the TSA via invasive searches and body scans. The synopses of each bill are as follows:

S2509: “Specifies that certain images generated by body scans violate State statutes prohibiting invasion of privacy, pornography, and endangerment of child welfare under certain circumstances.”

S2510: “Makes certain body searches third degree crime of sexual assault under certain circumstances.”

S2511: “Prohibits use of body imaging scanners to screen passengers and airline crew members.”

What separates these bills from other legislation consistent with the Tenth Amendment Center’s goals in New Jersey is that there are provisions that actually give the legislation teeth, combining Nullification AND Interposition. S2509 and S2510 provides for criminal penalties for federal agents who participate in the overintrusive pat downs and body scans, while S2511 opens up federal agents to civil suits.


NC Governor Perdue Vetoes The Health Care Freedom Act

An update from Dr. Dan Eichenbaum:

On Saturday, NC Governor Beverly Perdue chose to veto The Health Care Freedom Act (NC House Bill 2).  While her use of the executive veto is legitimate political action, in this instance it represents a wanton disregard for the wishes of a majority of our state’s legislators and citizens.

ObamaCare (HR 3590) prevents an individual from purchasing cost-effective health insurance tailored to his or her health status (section 2701) and requires them to obtain coverage for all risks regardless of personal exposure (section 1302).  The “Value-Based Payment Modifier” (section 3007) allows a group of fifteen unelected bureaucrats to decide what medical care regimen is permissible for each patient based on cost-effectiveness and provides for fines and incarceration of physicians who don’t comply.  The “Independent Payment Advisory Board” (section 3403) caps Medicare spending to a percentage of GDP at a time when the number of seniors covered by and entering the program is increasing.

In spite of assurances from the Obama administration, it is unlikely that you will be able to keep your current health insurance policy or your personal physician.  As a 35-year medical professional whose first priority is to my patient, l find this completely unacceptable.”


Real ID – Real Nullification

You may not realize it but the May 11 deadline for states to be in compliance with the 2005 Real ID Act is fast approaching. Fortunately, many states have taken efforts to nullify this attack on liberty by refusing to comply, with 16 states having laws against enactment and another 10 that have passed resolutions in opposition to the Act*. A representative for the National Conference of State Legislatures believes that there is not a single state currently meeting the standard.
Undeterred, House Republicans have sent a letter to Big Sis (who as Governor of AZ signed a law in 2008 forbidding the state from cooperating with the federal requirements) urging her not to extend the deadline. Bad enough that they already pushed through the extension of the Patriot Act, but now they want to continue the assault on our freedom, all in the name of security, by forcing the states to require documentation from citizens. It’s only a matter of time before babies are Lojacked at birth.


South Carolina reps see the light on Commerce Clause

Two state representatives in South Carolina are pushing back against a federal ban of incandescent light bulbs set to begin in January of 2012. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to impose such a ban on the citizens of the several states, and it’s nice that South Carolina noticed. From NetRightDaily: “State Representatives Sandifer and Loftis are taking the lead…


Intrastate Commerce Act Advancing in Florida

The Florida Tenth Amendment Center and Florida Campaign for Liberty are pleased to announce that the Intrastate Commerce Act has secured a sponsor in the Senate and was filed on March 1, 2011 by Senator Greg Evers. The legislation will help Florida adhere to the separation of powers called for under the Tenth Amendment of the US constitution and will prevent the Federal Government from regulating Intrastate Commerce where a good or service is provided by Floridians to Floridians.

SB1478 has many advantages. Unlike various firearm freedom act and food freedom protection acts, the intrastate commerce act covers every item manufactured and used inside a sovereign state. And unlike the non-binding memorial currently being considered in the Florida House, SB1478 has the force of law and includes the ability to enforce penalties against Federal Agents who harass Florida businesses.

Recently Federal Judge in NW Florida ruled that the Federal Government had over-stepped its authority in forcing citizens of the states to purchase health insurance. Greg Evers has this to say about the ruling:


Thoughts on Obama and DOMA

Writes Bob G: By asserting that Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and ordering the justice department to no longer defend the 1996 law in federal court, Obama just validated the nullification movement. If the agent of the States acting through the executive branch can nullify a law duly passed by the legislative branch, without…