Liberals for Slavery!

Would Rachel Maddow have enforced the Fugitive Slave Act?

On the 150th anniversary of the Civil War and the battle of Fort Sumter, MSNBC television host Rachel Maddow said on her evening program: “The fact that the first shots were fired in South Carolina specifically came as no surprise… the great pride of the South Carolina secessionists was Senator John C. Calhoun, a beloved pro-slavery politician who… championed the cause of nullification.”

The obviously anti-secession liberal host then defined the term: “Nullification—the idea that states could and should refuse to follow federal laws they didn’t like, that they thought went beyond the powers of the federal government.”

In addition to Calhoun, some of the earliest examples of nullification in the United States were in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This act declared that slaves who escaped to free states must be forcibly returned to their masters. Many abolitionists became rabid advocates of nullification.


The Nanny State Can’t Last

by Ron Paul

Last week, Congress and the administration refused to seriously consider the problem of government spending. Despite the fear-mongering, a government shutdown would not have been as bad as claimed.

It is encouraging that some in Washington seem to be insisting on reduced spending, which is definitely a step in the right direction, but only one step. We have miles to go before we can even come close to a solution, and it will involve completely redefining the role of government in our lives and on the world stage.

A compromise was struck at the last minute, but until Democrats agree to rein in entitlement spending, and Republicans back off the blank checks to the military industrial complex, it all amounts to political gamesmanship.


Ideology vs. The Constitution

I’d like to clarify our role here at the Tenth Amendment Center.  We are many times falsely referred to as a “Libertarian Think-Tank,” but this is a somewhat false assertion. The Tenth Amendment is a non-partisan rule of construction. It simply asserts what the Federal govt. is allowed to do, (and for the most part – what the statesare allowed to do).  Thus, it can just as easily be cited to justify a state’s desire to legislate auto emissions as it would be to assert 2nd Amendment rights amongst conservatives.  It can just as easily assert the right to death “with dignity,” or to recall the State National Guard as to assert healthcare freedom.

So, when we evaluate the “Tenth Amendment movement,” we need to keep in mind that what we think of the Tenth is by extension what we think of the Constitution.  If we are to disparage local control via the Tenth, we need to question our very charter as a nation. What the Tenth Amendment is essentially saying is that small communities across the nation have a right to govern themselves (or ourselves) in a manner that, to us, seems most likely to protect our inalienable rights, as are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.