‘Repeal and Replace’ Is Not Enough

The silver lining in the Supreme Court’s decision on ObamaCare is that it ratcheted back Congress’s power and authority under the Commerce Clause. That’s a victory for Freedom, for on page 43 of the Court’s opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts writes (italics added):

“Once we recognize that Congress may regulate a particular decision under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear. Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs. An individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. Those sanctions can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the attendant consequences of being branded a criminal: deprivation of otherwise protected civil rights, such as the right to bear arms or vote in elections; loss of employment opportunities; social stigma; and severe disabilities in other controversies, such as custody or immigration disputes.”

To repeat, under the Commerce Clause, “Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs.” So the Chief Justice has done us a favor, as few Americans relish the thought of being bossed around by the likes of the Pelosi-Reid Congress, the worst Congress in history.

What was on trial in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius was the expansion of federal power. The big question in NFIB v. Sebelius was: Does the Commerce Clause grant Congress the power to command individuals to buy a product?

In oral arguments, justices repeatedly asked the Solicitor General for some “limiting principle” so that Congress couldn’t just command Americans to do anything. No such principle was presented, so the Court struck down the individual mandate to buy health insurance.

America is a nation of dual sovereignty, where the States (and the People) retain power except for those powers the Constitution vests in the federal government, which the States created. The federal government is therefore a limited government of enumerated powers. America’s dual sovereignty is unequivocally confirmed by the Tenth Amendment

NEXT STEPS
donate-now-button button-subscribe button-take-action
Details

Do we need a “Repeal Amendment?”

The growth of the federal government, and the consolidation of power that goes with it, has gained the attention of most people in our country.  Rapid increases in spending levels and additional layers of rules, regulations, an mandates has most of us concerned for our future, and our individual liberty.  Unpopular laws, like Obamacare, have sharpened the differences between the ruling class and the rest of us.

What’s the solution?  Ryan Young & David Deerson writing for RealClearPolicy, propose a new Constitutional amendment that would allow a vote by 2/3 of the states to repeal any law they determine to be unlawful.  In the article, they describe a federalist system, that not only separates powers among the three branches, but also between the states and the central government.

They give a brief history of the balance of power between the feds and the states, noting that the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments all shifted the balance toward the feds.  True enough. They seem to lament the shifting balance of power from the states, to Washington, DC, over the past century, or so, and suggest that a new “Repeal Amendment” might solve the problem.  In the same paragraph, however, they admit that getting 2/3 of any group to agree on anything would be difficult, but that we have to do something. They tout the support of several Congressmen, and point to efforts by a few states to make similar state laws.

Details

Why Do I Talk About Marijuana?

We all have personal preferences as to what should or should not be accepted in society. The problem is, however, that people want laws to enforce their personal preferences. Liberty and constitutional government suffer with this approach.

Many people do not like marijuana and think it  harmful to society. Perhaps it is in some respects. But what may be harmful does not paint a complete picture of what our laws should criminalize.

Despite the intentions of past generations that criminalized tobacco and alcohol, a further look into principles taught America that absolute prohibition on these things (a) does not promote good and small government; (b) leads to unnecessary black market criminal enterprise; and (c) unnecessarily grows government prosecution and taxation.

We learned that the laws created a greater evil to society than the prohibited thing. And as we accept in politics, the lesser evil is better than the greater evil, right? Thus, the focus should be, to what extent should government be limited in criminalizing human activity–not simply, is this activity considered generically harmful.

Details

Educate, Advocate and Participate

“Somebody ought to do something!”

“I’m tired of shouting at my TV but what am I to do? Write a letter? Send an email? A fax? What for?  “They” don’t care about us and they’re not listening!”

“What are we supposed to do?”

Sound familiar? Well, Patriots, there’s not one thing you can do—there are actually three options to choose from—as a 21st century Patriot you can exercise one, two or all three at the same time!

Imagine, if you will, a trident—a long three pronged spear commonly associated with the classical god of the sea—Neptune(or Poseidon). The first prong is “educate,” the middle—“advocate,” the third—“participate.” The trident is the Patriots’ best weapon in the fight to save our republic from those hell bent on shredding the Constitution and replacing it with a “living” document. Here’s how.

Educate—First, start with educating yourself. Have you read the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution? How about the Bill of Rights? Remember them from civics class? Oh, that’s right; civics class has long since vanished from the majority of our schools. Only old guys like me remember learning about local, state and federal government and how they are supposed to work together; laws—and how they are to be created, argued and passed and how those laws are supposed to be interpreted, enforced and by whom.

Details

Bullets, Bullets, Bullets…

via People against the NDAA

Recent reports have surfaced that the Department of Homeland Security, The National Weather Service, and Social Security Administration are attempting to and purchasing large amounts of riot gear, bulletproof checkpoints, stop and go lights, and ammunition.

Most recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration purchased 46,000 hollow-point bullets.” This purchase order accompanies those from other agencies within the government, who are also purchasing large quantities of ammunition.  The purchase orders for ammunition consist of 750+ million rounds of bullets which include hollow point organ damaging bullets, and wall piercing mag rounds. In a recent article, the Washington Times claims the purchase order for some 46,000 bullets was for “training officers in the NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement.

These bullets are for training? Hollow-point bullets can leave an exit hole the size of a grapefruit. What or who is our Government training its agents to shoot?

A purchase order was uncovered on FBO.gov which includes up to another 750 million rounds of various types of ammunition.  It was “said” in the cover for the order they were to be used for training purposes yet with this amount of ammunition, bullet proof checkpoints, riot shields, painting everyday Americans as terrorists, and working with the Army the government seems to be training for an upcoming Civil War.

Madison Ruppert of End The Lie posted a YouTube a video called “End of the Line”  claiming that the US government was obsessed with snatching up seemingly all the ammo on Earth to points of absurdity.  He noted that we simply DO NOT have the money to be buying hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition for United States Government Agents to “train” with.

Details

Food Freedom through Resistance

Add to iTunes

Michael Boldin and Lesley Swann charge into action with Tenther Radio Episode 61!

During the news segment, Lesley brought to our attention a column posted in a Tennessee newspaper written by Ina Hughs claiming our rights don’t come from God but from the state.

Next, our heroes discussed the weed issue in Colorado.  Michael illustrated this point by saying, “Medical Marijuana on the state level is probably the greatest example today in modern times of the Tenth Amendment in action where people in their own states are making decisions on what they want to do even though Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch all say they are not allowed to do it.”

Details

Southern Comfort

A recent development in Arkansas must be giving the feds conniptions. I mean, this sort of thing isn’t supposed to be occurring in the South, for God’s sake! So, just what is this thing that isn’t supposed to happen? Why, it’s a movement to legalize medical marijuana in the Razorback State. Of all the nerve!

Ryan Denham, the leader of the group Arkansans for Compassionate Care, and the one heading up the effort to put medical marijuana on the November ballot, is correct when he says his state’s residents are no different than those who reside in the other 17 states and D.C., which all have some form of legalized medical marijuana policy. People have common needs, afflictions, hopes, and wants, and it matters not where they reside in the United States–or in the world for that matter.

One of Denham’s detractors, Jerry Cox, the head of the conservative Arkansas Family Council, asks a truly ignorant question in reference to this measure.

“Why would we want to pass a law that blatantly violates federal law?”

Well, Mr. Cox, so you’re saying that you are OK with all of the federal laws, rules, and regulations as they currently exist? Think about it. You’re “conservative,” right? Do you like Roe v. Wade? Do you like Obamacare? This list could go on and on.

Details