Conventional Nonsense in Fifteen Minutes or Less

This is the future of GovernmentCare (not ObamaCare): “Do what I say and don’t ask any questions.” And then, of course, for children there is the requisite Safety Nazi rundown (don’t play, don’t move, don’t touch hot things, etc.). This is modern American medicine. And the medical establishment considers this tactic of “covering all the bases”…


Jefferson’s 19-Year Rule

I bring this up not to endorse or criticize either Jefferson or Madison, but just as a good example of the feedback members get in the Liberty Classroom forums. Someone asked, “In a letter Jefferson wrote to Madison about the Constitution he talked about how laws should have a termination date of 19 years. This option was better than just allowing for the repeal of the law. Is there more to it or if we were to follow Jefferson’s word should the Constitution have been rewitten many times over?”

Kevin Gutzman, who teaches U.S. History to 1877 for us, replied:

The letter you mention was sent to James Madison. Jefferson had been pondering the question whether we should inherit any government obligations, whether in the form of constitutions, statutes, public debt, or private debt. Having tentatively concluded that we shouldn’t, he wrote to Madison with this idea.

In response, Madison made several observations: 1) Obligations incurred by government in one generation may well yield benefits to the next. So, for example, if the government sells bonds to finance construction of a bridge, the succeeding generation may find itself facing the previous generation’s obligation, but it will also recoup most of the benefits associated with that obligation. To insist that every obligation have a 19-year sunset would make such government programs impossible. 2)


Ending Privacy, Sports Betting, Peaceful Voluntary Exchange. Tenther Radio 08-20-12

This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for order at


According to a report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in order to Make Sure that criminals get no location privacy, the 6th Circuit federal court kills it for everyone else too.

As part of an ongoing investigation into a drug trafficking organization, DEA agents obtained approval from a federal magistrate judge to access the “subscriber information, cell site information, GPS real-time location, and ‘ping’ data” from a pre-paid wireless phone through the use of an admininstrative order (PDF) issued under the Stored Communications Act, which does not require “probable cause” like a search warrant. On appeal the defendant Melvin Skinner, argued that the three day warrantless cell phone tracking violated the Fourth Amendment, but the Sixth Circuit disagreed.

In what can only be described as a results-oriented opinion, the court found Skinner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone location data because “if a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal.” Otherwise, “technology would help criminals but not the police.” In other words, because cell phones can be used to commit crimes, there can’t be any Fourth Amendment privacy rights in them. If this sounds like an over-simplistic description of the legal reasoning in an opinion we disagree with, the sad reality is that the court’s conclusion really did boil down to this shallow understanding of the law.

Somehow, the Sixth Circuit lost sight of the fact that its attempt to ensure criminals cannot “use modern technological devices to carry out criminal acts” means that innocent people will have to lose their privacy rights. Judge Berzon of the Ninth Circuit recently noted a fear that “understandable abhorrence” of child pornography crimes “can infect judicial judgment” and lead to incorrect legal results that erode constitutional protections against intrusive computer searches for everyone. This fear is even greater when the issue before a court is the scope of privacy protections for a cell phone, a device carried by far more innocent people than criminals. Judge Berzon wrote judges must “remember that the protections of the Fourth Amendment do not depend on the nature of the suspected criminal activity, any more than they do on the race or gender of the suspect.”

According to a report from Joel Poindexter, a confederacy of professional sports leagues and the NCAA have filed suit against New Jersey, in attempt to prevent the people of the state from gambling there legally.


Will Nullification Lead to Conflict?

As to “the immediate conflict you would provoke” by this nullification bill, that would be up to the federal government coming into a state uninvited to enforce on the people an unconstitutional law.

This is how it started when I posted the Nullify Obamacare in North Carolina Petition on a Facebook page. In a very civil discussion we debated the pros and cons of nullification vs. “the throw the bums out” and the “go to court” approach to unconstitutional federal laws.

You say, “There are three ways to avoid Federal laws: 1) get the Congress to repeal them; 2) get the President to back down from enforcing them; and 3) get a Federal Court to enjoin their enforcement.” So, your answer is to return to the very ones who have given us this, and many other unconstitutional actions, and plead with them to stop. Well, so far that has been working real well for us, hasn’t it? And even if they did, it could be reversed at the next election.

We have tried this solution and it hasn’t worked.

Even you admit that the Supreme Court can did dig around in the Constitution to find a “clause” they say will justify this mandate. That is the problem; they will never give up powers taken from the States as long as the states refuse to say, “NO MORE!”

You say, “Sometimes impasses can be relieved through compromise among the political actors involved in a dispute. But when there is no retreat and no compromise, resort must be had to the courts and their judgments have been respected to the benefit of all, even those who may lose a particular dispute.” The only compromise we seem to be offered by the very leviathan you elude too seems to be what color of chains we would prefer.

You are correct in saying that “one or two states nullify a law will not stop them, but if more and more states do so then they have to either give in or use force.” The day they use force will be the end of this union of independent, sovereign States,because the writing will be on the wall. Either States will be forced to submit and become vassals of a centralized government, or these united States will form a new general government.


Healthcare Freedom Act: More Important than Ever

by Clint Bolick, Goldwater Institute

Several states have added a Health Care Freedom Act to their constitutions, with several more states contemplating doing so through voter measures on the November 2012 ballot.  Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision inNFIB v. Sebelius, the adoption and deployment of the Health Care Freedom Act will be a vitally important tool in protecting individual autonomy.

The first state to adopt a Health Care Freedom Act was Arizona, whose voters approved it as an amendment to their Constitution in 2010.  Different versions contain varying language, but the core provision is the same: no governmental entity shall coerce, directly or indirectly, any individual to participate in a healthcare system, nor interfere with an individual’s freedom to directly purchase lawful medical services.

Obviously, the federal healthcare law violates the Health Care Freedom Act in two ways:  by directly mandating that individuals purchase prescribed health insurance, and by indirectly coercing them to do so by imposing tax penalties for refusing to follow the government’s edict.

The Health Care Freedom Act was not directly at issue in NFIB v. Sebelius, but a clash between this state constitutional protection and the federal healthcare law is inevitable.


Nullify ObamaCare!

Nullify ObamaCare In Texas. Here’s The Words. Which Texas Legislators Will Add The “Music”??

Federal Health Care Nullification Act—TEXAS

(An Act to render null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty.)


WHEREAS, the People of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes, and nothing more.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves.

WHEREAS, the assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” interferes with the right of the People of the State of Texas to regulate health care as they see fit, and makes a mockery of James Madison’s assurance in Federalist #45 that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”

RESOLVED, a new section of law to be codified in the Texas Statutes as Section [NUMBER] of Title [NUMBER], unless there is created duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

RESOLVED, the Legislature of the State of  Texas declares that the federal law known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitutions of the United States (and of the sovereign state of Texas) and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

RESOLVED, it shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” within the limits of this State.


Red Team vs Blue Team Nonsense

Add to iTunes Michael Boldin and Lesley Swann lead the charge on this Episode 60 of Tenther Radio. In the news, Buffalo, New York is aiming at becoming the first drone-free city. Lobbyists are pushing for expansion of this robotic surveillance, but Lesley echoes sentiments of the citizen lobbyists saying, “Nullify the drones. Please!” Kentucky…


Name Calling and “Tenther Nullification Nonsense” in Arizona

AzBlueMeanie claims in the article Neoconfederate insurrectionists in Arizona Legislature revive discredited ‘nullification’ theory that:

All elected officials in Arizona take the following oath of office:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of __________ according to the best of my ability, so help me God.”

And yet the Arizona legislature is populated by Neoconfederate insurrectionists who have violated their oath of office and are actively engaged in acts of domestic insurrection against the United States government.

Let’s get this straight now… AzBluemeanie believes that a state elected official who stands up against what he or she perceives to be a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution has “violated their oath of office and are actively engaged in acts of domestic insurrection against the United States government”. That is a pretty bold statement to make with no evidence to back it up. Nice job!

Let us bring some credentials into the discussion.