Do the Secessionists Have As Much Courage As the Nullifiers?

By now, anybody who even casually follows the Tenther movement and the liberty movement in general has likely heard about the secession petitions circulating.  Yesterday, I had personally gone from only hearing about Louisiana, to hearing my State of New Jersey had one too, to hearing the count was up to twenty States.  That could be an old number by the time this makes it into the Tenth Amendment Center blog.

The language of these petitions is interesting, as they “ask” the federal government to let said States peaceably withdraw from the United States.  Although I confess to having signed, originally for Louisiana upon first finding out, and then for New Jersey, it was more out of curiosity than anything else.

Apparently, any State circulating these petitions requires a minimum of 25,000 signatures within thirty days in order to receive a White House response.  Texas has nearly double the required signatures, and Louisiana is likely a day away from hitting the threshold.  Several states are beyond halfway there.  Check to see if your State is on the list.  While you’re at it, go ahead and sign, so you can get your response.  The most likely response from the White House is a familiar word to anybody in the nullification movement, “No.”


Will Americans Be Stripped of Citizenship Based on Accusation?

In a recent op-ed published in Jurist, St. John’s University School of Law student Christopher Elsee described a scenario he believes threatens the civil rights of his fellow citizens.

Writes Elsee:

Imagine you have just written a check to an organization that sends mechanical engineering textbooks to students in Afghanistan or Iraq. Now further imagine that you have been engaged in this practice for well over a decade because you are interested in helping individuals in developing countries to improve their technical knowledge, with the hopes of enabling them to better themselves. Are you supporting terrorists? According to a proposed piece of legislation, you may very well be.

The legislation Elsee mentions is the Terrorist Expatriation Act. This bill, proposed in 2010 by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), would strip any American accused of terrorism of his citizenship. This would place the suspect outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution’s Article III courts and assign the trial on his alleged crimes to a military tribunal.

As Elsee explains:

The act adds offenses such as providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations, engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the US or any country engaged in hostilities alongside the US or providing direct operational support to the US. Another section of the act explains that “material support or resources” means, among other things as the list goes on, property, services, training, expert advice or assistance, communications equipment and facilities.

This illustrates why the person in Elsee’s hypothetical would face expatriation.

A central point of the act not specifically addressed in Elsee’s article is the provision specifying the burden of proof in a case brought under its authority.

Under the Terrorist Expatriation Act, anyone stripped of his citizenship could appeal his expatriation to a federal court, where the federal government would have to demonstrate by “a preponderance of the evidence” that the accused committed the offense with the purpose of relinquishing his citizenship.


Wisconsin Patriot Groups Encourage Gov. Walker to “Pass” on State-Created Exchanges

Governor Scott Walker delayed the implementation of the misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) as much as possible in Wisconsin until after the 2012 Presidential Election, and we, the undersigned, applaud his efforts in such regard. With President Obama’s reelection to a second term, however, it is now clear that Obamacare will not be repealed by the Federal Government. As a result, by November 16, 2012, Governor Walker must decide if the State of Wisconsin shall create health insurance exchanges, or if the State shall instead allow the Federal Government to create the health insurance exchanges for Wisconsin.

We, the undersigned, strongly encourage Governor Walker – and the State of Wisconsin – to not take responsibility for the creation of Wisconsin’s health insurance exchanges. Regardless of which government entity (State vs. Federal) creates the exchanges, there is no opportunity for state-controlled exchanges at this time; through its rules, regulations, and expressed authority, the Federal Government shall maintain complete control of Wisconsin exchanges no matter which entity bears the initial responsibility for the creation of the exchanges.


“To Win the Drug War: Follow the States” Branson hits homerun

Richard Branson’s article entitled “To Win the Drug War: Follow the States” is not only a catchy title, but adds to the arsenal of actions all of us can advocate at the State level.  To win, we need to fight the battle at the State level, if not each town, if not each county.

The Drug war is a farce, the federal government uses it to grow itself, impose itself on the people and the States and unless the States take action, this is but the tip of yet another federal take-over that must and needs to be stopped, if we want to Retake America, one State at a time.

Richard Branson makes a solid case,  in this Huffington Post  article,  that the Drug war has devastating impact on our country, that neither party during campaign has brought it up, then goes on to point out the terrible cost in $$$, lives, vast and extensive efforts to fight it, the growth of the prison system and more.  He then goes so far as to point out that public opinion is swinging in favor of basic drug decriminalization, a la marijuana, and that the States could more effectively do the job than the feds, are beginning to do so and—he does not say this—that the current Drug War overall is a bust, a total failure and does more damage to the people, economy and our prosperity, all based on a witch hunt mentality and a way to grow the federal government seemingly without limit.

All this is not only now self evident, from almost all studies done, but from policemen and others working in the field. “Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) represents police, prosecutors, judges, corrections officials and others who, after witnessing the harms of the drug war firsthand, are now devoted to ending that war.” An article just this week by LEAP staff opens with


Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents

At the close of 2011, Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for the year 2012. In it are what some constitutional experts consider to be some of the greatest constitutional violations in American history. At issue are sections 1021 and 1022 which, in essence, create a new power for the federal government to “indefinitely detain” – without due process – any person. Indefinitely. That’s little different than kidnapping.

In response, there’s been a bit of a firestorm from people across the political spectrum. Local communities in Colorado sent out the first warning shots, passing resolutions and ordinances rejecting such power earlier this year. Then, at the close of the 2012 state legislative session, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed House Bill 1160, making that state the first to paw a law not only rejecting the federal act, but fully banning any state agency from cooperating with the feds on it.

Currently, more than 15 local communities have done the same. Michigan is also considering a bill that is similar to Virginia’s. And today, Texas State Representative Lyle Larson introduced House Bill 149 (HB149), the Texas Liberty Preservation Act. This might be the strongest anti-NDAA bill introduced yet.

It states, in part:


Obama’s Legacy of Constitutional Violations

by Shahid Buttar, via the People’s Blog for the Constitution

President Obama’s reelection has sparked an onslaught of analysis attempting to define the agenda for his second term. Will it reflect the vision of restoring liberty and security on which the president ran in 2008, or the disappointing passivity towards the national security state that characterized his first term?

More to the point, will President Obama’s legacy include emerging American authoritarianism, or instead the recovery of constitutional freedoms lost over the past decade? While machinations in Washington will of course influence the answer, We the People will play a crucial role, well beyond the 2012 election, in determining the outcome.

Obama’s legacy of constitutional violations

With the broad strokes that history affords the past, any president’s legacy usually shrinks within a decade to two or three elements. For instance, Clinton is remembered for presiding over the tech boom and resulting federal surplus, dismantling welfare and escalating mass incarceration, and surviving a partisan impeachment effort prompted by sophomoric sexual indiscretion.

George H. W. Bush’s legacy includes the first Iraq war, failing to energize the economy, and a premature pledge not to raise taxes. We remember Ronald Reagan for overcoming the Soviet Union and its satellites (even if his methods ensured the contemporary budget crisis, created al-Qaeda, and emboldened Iran), heralding “morning in America” to end a recession, and after surviving an assassination attempt, conveniently growing unable to recall more or less anything about compounding scandals that stained his second term.

In these broad strokes, President Obama’s legacy will likely include memories of the historic debate over healthcare policy in 2009, and the recurring budget crises that, combined with GOP intransigence, have periodically brought Washington to a standstill under his administration. The most enduring part of his legacy, however, will be the entrenchment of the national security state on his watch.

Beyond merely failing to reverse the trajectory of the Bush-Cheney administration, Obama’s first term extended it, pioneering new abuses while entrenching old ones.


Jerry Brown Tells Obama Administration to Back Off

Gov Jerry Brown on states’ rights on drug legalization “Justice Dept ought to respect the will of these separate states”

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said Sunday the federal government should respect states’ rights to decide how to regulate marijuana use, in light of votes Tuesday to approve legal use of the drug in Colorado and Washington.


Missouri Statehouse Fails Voters

The Missouri Health Care Exchange Question was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in the state of Missouri. The measure prohibits the establishment, creation, or operation of a health insurance exchange unless it is created by a legislative act, a ballot initiative, or veto referendum.

The ballot summary of the measure has been under scrutiny, with legislative figures who support the measure stating that the summary, provided by the Missouri Secretary of State, was misleading to voters.

State Senator Rob Schaaf commented…

“It’s totally playing politics, and it’s lying to the voters.”

Missouri Secretary of State spokesman Ryan Hobart countered,

“This office has always followed our legal obligation to provide Missourians with fair and sufficient summaries of ballot initiatives, and this summary is no different.”

Senator Schaaf, is a Doctor, and a director of the Missouri Doctors Mutual Insurance Co. which stands to benefit from the government subsidies of a national healthcare plan.

So now who’s playing politics?


Governor Brownback: No Exchange From Kansas!

Last Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback refused to have his state to implement a health care exchange as part of  the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  His office released the following statement:

Kansans feel Obamacare is an overreach by Washington and have rejected the state’s participation in this federal program. My administration will not partner with the federal government to create a state-federal partnership insurance exchange because we will not benefit from it and implementing it could costs Kansas taxpayers millions of dollars.

States have until Nov. 16 to inform the Federal Government of their intent of creating an exchange or leaving the creations and maintaining the exchanges by the federal government.  Currently, 15 states and the District of Columbia have stated they will create exchanges.