States oppose health care bill while implementing it

“We’re for it while we’re against it.” That sums up the apparent position of many states challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. While pursuing an end to the health care act in the federal court system, Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Michigan and Nebraska have crossed the first threshold in…


State sovereignty: a final solution

Political activists Ron and Donnie Kennedy have proposed an amendment that would formalize the principles of state nullification and reaffirm the sovereignty of the 50 American states.

These United States of America are a Republic of Republics deriving its authority from the consent of the governed residing within their Sovereign State. Each Sovereign State is the agent of the people thereof. The federal government formed by the compact of the United States Constitution is the agent of the Sovereign States. Federal authority shall be supreme in all areas specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. All acts or legislation enacted pursuant to the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. The Sovereign State reserves an equal right to judge for itself as to the constitutionality of any act of the federal government.

Ron Holland wrote about the proposed amendment in a Nov. 24 article published in the Daily Bell. The Kennedys call the amendment, “the final solution to federal abuse.”

“I sadly agree with them,” Holland writes.

Holland lays out a convincing argument as to why politics as usual will never turn the tide of federal overreach and then offers the solution.


For the Feds, Speech is Speech. Unless you’re advocating Jury Nullification

Retired chemistry professor Julian Heicklen is facing imprisonment for advocating jury nullification to passersby, following an indictment by federal prosecutors last year, according to the New York Times.  He stood on a plaza outside the United States Courthouse in Manhattan and handed out brochures on the subject.

According to prosecutors, Heicklen’s “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred…. His speech is not protected by the First Amendment…. No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable.”

Meanwhile, a representative of the New York Civil Liberties Union has shot back: “The government is dangerously wrong in claiming it can criminalize sidewalk advocacy supporting jury nullification. Other than the extremely limited situations in which someone seeks to influence a known juror in a case, jury nullification advocacy is squarely protected by the First Amendment.”


Tea Party: Cut Insane Deficits. Bring Back Crazy Deficits!

Herman Cain won a straw poll of Missouri Tea Party members last week. Ron Paul came in second, and Newt Gingrich third, with no other candidate even close.

If you read this blog regularly, nothing here will come as a surprise to you. But I am still trying to understand what principles the Tea Party espouses. Constitutionalism? Newt Gingrich is a constitutionalist? Herman Cain is a constitutionalist? What is the evidence for these claims? Both figures hold extremely conventional views on a wide array of issues. Neither one is any kind of maverick, except according to the media’s definition of the term.

Here’s what I wrote in Rollback about Newt the constitutionalist: