ACTION ALERT! Colorado County Democratic Convention to Vote on NDAA

A Resolution in opposition to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) will be voted on at the Prowers County Democratic County Convention this Saturday March 31 from 2 – 4 p.m., at the Cow Palace Inn, Lamar, Colo.

Provisions 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA authorize the unlawful arrest and detention of anyone by the military for an indefinite period of time without charges. These provisions of the NDAA cut across all party lines and have brought together groups and individuals from across the country in support of resolutions, bills proclaiming state non-compliance and bills which threaten federal officials with arrest if they try to enforce these provisions in their counties, cities and states.


Nullify the TSA!

James Babb joins the Robert Scott Bell show to talk about state, local – and individual – efforts to reject the unconstitutional and immoral TSA. Both James and Robert will be featured speakers at Nullify Now! Philadelphia on March 31, 2012. Get tickets here – – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS Play in new…


NDAA Nullification Passes Arizona House Committee

After being left for dead, Arizona Senate Bill 1182 (SB1182), what many are referring to as the NDAA Nullification Act, is breathing life once again after the House Rules committee passed it by a vote of 6-3 this week.
SB1182 recently passed the Senate by a 21-9 vote.  This week, the rules committee voted it down, 5-4.  But, after a strong grassroots campaign pressed 2 “swing votes” on the committee to reconsider, a motion was made today to do just that.  It wasn’t on the calendar but was voted on promptly.  Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect it to go to a full house vote sometime next week.  (Arizona residents – please see action steps below!)
The bill states in part that:  “this state and any agency of this state shall not provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012”


Why conservatives should want the Supreme Court to uphold Obamacare

Oral arguments over the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are wrapped up. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in June. In the meantime, conservatives, constitutionalists and libertarians will anxiously await the Supreme Court’s decision, hoping that the justices find the mandate unconstitutional. They should be hoping for the…


Who Voted Against the Constitution – Again?

In Who Voted Against the Constitution, we saw which of Pennsylvania’s Washington contingent voted for the unconstitutional provisions in the Patriot Act.

This post updates that information with another column to record how our legislators feel about the indefinite detention provisions in HR1540, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. The next-to-last column is the legislator’s vote for or against the Patriot Act, and the last column is the legislator’s vote for or against the 2012 NDAA.

Entries in red voted in favor of both acts. Entries in orange voted in favor of one, and entries in green voted against both.


The fatuous “uniqueness” argument for the constitutionality of Obamacare

Obamacare’s supporters argue that the individual mandate is justified because the health care market is unique—it’s something that everyone uses, and a great deal of cost-shifting now occurs in health care. The argument is fatuous for two reasons. First, the cost-shifting is, for the most part, created by Congress itself—through, for example, mandates on hospitals…


The Supremacy Clause?

NOTE: Tom Woods will be the evening keynote speaker at Nullify Now! Philadelphia. Get tickets here – – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS


That poor soul from the other day who insisted Lincoln never said that blacks shouldn’t be voters or jurors, or intermarry with white people, or that he had no intention to interfere with slavery where it existed, still thinks the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause makes state nullification unconstitutional.

The Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. It reads, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

“Grand Old Partisan” takes this to mean:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws, whether or not in pursuance of the Constitution… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”


Supreme Court to Decide if the U.S. Constitution is a Dead Letter

by Bob Marshall, via American Thinker

By tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will have spent six hours hearing oral argument over a three-day period about the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare.  After the argument on Tuesday, the Court will address the question: “Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision.”  That sterile statement of the issue on which the Court granted certiorari vastly understates the significance of this case.  The truth is that this case will determine whether there are any meaningful limitations on Congress’ power to mandate an individual’s life choices.

When Congress’ power under Article I, Section 8 — power to “regulate commerce … among the several states” (Clause 3) — has been paired with Congress’ power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into executing the foregoing powers” (Clause 18), the result has been the virtually unlimited power of Congress to dominate the everyday behavior of the American people, in direct conflict with the plain language of the Tenth Amendment reserving such powers to the state and to the people.

In large part, it is the combination of the “commerce” and “necessary and proper” clauses that have led many to conclude that the Constitution is a dead letter to our generation — that the battle was lost before most of us were born.  How profoundly sad.  Indeed, the Sunday morning pundits believe that the ObamaCare challenge is already lost.  Well, they may hope that it is lost, but I have a different view.

I have been in the trenches against ObamaCare since before it was enacted.  In late 2009 I wrote an article against the individual mandate for the Richmond Times Dispatch.  In January 2010, I authored the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act that our attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, used to file suit against the Obama administration.  On April 4, 2011, I filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit to support that challenge to ObamaCare.  I explained this brief to the House of Delegates on April 4, 2011.  My wife and I attended oral argument, and we saw the case presented to three Democrat-appointed judges on the Fourth Circuit panel.  In their opinion, those judges impugned the integrity of those of us who were working against this law, and then decided that since the Commonwealth of Virginia was a mere state, it did not have standing to challenge the law.  Then I filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court urging the Court to grant certiorari on November 3, 2011 — a petition that is still pending.