Today’s Lesson: Nullifying ‘Gun-Free’ Zones

Class is in session.

It’s on the subject of school violence, and in the wake of the massacre at a Connecticut elementary school.  First of all, let me address those who argue, I shouldn’t “politicize” a tragedy, or I should respect the families.  But the truth is, more respect for these families, I couldn’t have.  This is a tragedy beyond comprehension, and I can’t begin to fathom what the Newtown community is going through.  It is gun control advocates that are politicizing, and exploiting the situation, with U.S. legislators now saying they will introduce assault weapon bans in Congress.  Regardless, we also can’t ignore the growing epidemic of school shootings.  I’ve heard many answers to solve this problem from eliminating public access to semi-automatic weapons to better access to mental healthcare.  These are unrealistic.  In one case, it’s also unconstitutional and bad public policy.  The answer to this problem is to eliminate the federally mandated “gun free” zones, and allow local school boards to decide how best to protect their students.

This is an education issue, as much as it is a Second Amendment issue.  Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, in the federally enumerated powers, does it list education as a power delegated to the Federal Government.  And while the Feds have continually worked to create this power for themselves (through No Child Left Behind, and Michelle Obama’s federal school lunch program, to name a few) it is a power left to local governments, and local school boards.  The Federal Government also unconstitutionally created the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, thus allowing for only deranged psychopaths to bring weapons into our public schools.  While the SCOTUS originally declared the Act unconstitutional, Congress was able to circumvent the ruling, and the GFSZA of 1990 still lives.  Young, innocent, and defenseless students have been paying the price ever since.

Local school boards should be able to determine the best and most effective way to protect their children.  And yes, this would include having armed and trained personnel to defend kids, instead of making them sitting ducks.  Now, this doesn’t mean a Federal Law should be made requiring all schools to arm teachers.  It means that every local school board should decide.  Maybe one school will have a gun safe in the Principal’s office, allowing only him or her access.  Maybe a school will arm and train every teacher.  Maybe a school will put in additional security measures without arming anyone.  Maybe they will hire an armed security guard.  Maybe they will do nothing.  The point is that it’s their decision to make.

Some will, and have, argued that armed teachers would end up turning weapons on their own students.  However, if we are hiring murdering lunatics to help raise our kids, I think our problems are a little worse than this possibility.   Teachers go through very strict licensing requirements, if they can pass this requirement, they can be trusted to protect our children from violent attack.  And while it will be shown below that no federal gun control laws can be allowed, it is much better to have responsible and caring teachers with guns in our schools, than a crazed madman, who only wants to murder as many young kids as possible.


Right to Work is Part of Economic Liberty

by Ron Paul

Many observers were surprised when Michigan, historically a stronghold of union power, became the nation’s 24th “Right to Work” state. The backlash from November’s unsuccessful attempt to pass a referendum forbidding the state from adopting a right to work law was a major factor in Michigan’s rejection of compulsory unionism. The need for drastic action to improve Michigan’s economy, which is suffering from years of big government policies, also influenced many Michigan legislators to support right to work.

Let us be clear: right to work laws simply prohibit coercion. They prevent states from forcing employers to operate as closed union shops, and thus they prevent unions from forcing individuals to join. In many cases right to work laws are the only remedy to federal laws which empower union bosses to impose union dues as a condition of employment.

Right to work laws do not prevent unions from bargaining collectively with employers, and they do not prevent individuals from forming or joining unions if they believe it will benefit them. Despite all the hype, right to work laws merely enforce the fundamental right to control one’s own labor.

States with right to work laws enjoy greater economic growth and a higher standard of living than states without such laws. According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, from 2001-2011 employment in right to work states grew by 2.4%, while employment in union states fell by 3.4%! During the same period wages rose by 12.5% in right to work states, while rising by a mere 3.1% in union states. Clearly, “Right to Work” is good for business and labor.

Workers are best served when union leaders have to earn their membership and dues by demonstrating the benefits they provide. Instead, unions use government influence and political patronage. The result is bad laws that force workers to subsidize unions and well-paid union bosses.

Of course government should not regulate internal union affairs, or interfere in labor disputes for the benefit of employers. Government should never forbid private-sector workers from striking. Employees should be free to join unions or not, and employers should be able to bargain with unions or not. Labor, like all goods and services, is best allocated by market forces rather than the heavy, restrictive hand of government. Voluntarism works.


Mike Maharrey Interview on Elections, ACA and NDAA Nullification and Hypocritical Politicians

Tenth Amendment Communications director Mike Maharrey talks with Jim Roveniski on the Tea Party is Dead podcast.

Mike and Jim discuss the November elections, jury nullification, hypocritical politicians, health care act and NDAA detention nullification and range of other topics.

“They (the feds) depend


Will Nullification Play a Role in the Next Legislative Session?

With this past weekend’s actions of the North Carolina GOP Executive Committee, the state’s Republican leadership have been put on notice by grassroots party officials from across the state who expect them to declare their intentions on returning any federal monies requested and accepted by Gov. Perdue.

The Resolution and the overwhelming vote makes a clear statement that the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act’s healthcare exchanges are not welcome in North Carolina, and it is the position of the majority of the county and state leadership that the PPACA, otherwise known as Obamacare,is not needed in our state.

We at the Tenth Amendment Center wish to commend the NC GOP Executive Committee on their stand on Obamacare monies. We would urge them to join us in requesting the first order of business in the 2013 session of the State Legislature would be the introduction and passage of the Federal Health Care Nullification Act making Obamacare “null and void” in North Carolina.


Judge Napolitano: FISA Extension Shows a Blatant Disregard for the Fourth Amendment

Last month, the House voted to extend a statute of the FISA law which allows the federal government to listen to your calls and read your emails without a warrant. Judge Napolitano joined Fox and Friends to voice his outrage at this blatant disregard for the Fourth Amendment.

He said,


The Federal Health Insurance Law Remains Vulnerable

by Christina Sandefur, Goldwater Institute

Last week, Pennsylvania became the 24th state to opt out of a state-funded health insurance exchange, declining to foot the bill for overreaching federal policies. One by one, states are learning that state-funded exchanges–which come with hefty price tags but zero flexibility–are a bad deal.

But there’s another reason states shouldn’t rush to set up exchanges: the legal fate of the federal health insurance law is still up in the air. In addition to the Goldwater Institute’s lawsuit challenging Congress’s unconstitutional delegation of power to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, courts across the country will hear new legal challenges to the law next year. Here are a few of the major lawsuits to keep an eye on:

Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Although the Supreme Court last summer characterized the penalty for Americans who do not purchase government-sanctioned health insurance as a tax, it may be an unconstitutional tax. That’s because the Constitution requires all “bills for raising revenue” to “originate in the House.” By restricting tax bills to the branch of Congress closest to the people, the House of Representatives, the Framers intended to safeguard the people from this potentially dangerous power. But the federal health insurance law originated in the Senate–not the House–in direct violation of the Origination Clause. The Pacific Legal Foundation is leading this challenge in federal district court in Washington, D.C.


Our Government-Created Financial Crisis

by Walter E. Williams

Suppose you saw a building on fire. Would you seek counsel from the arsonist who set it ablaze for advice on how to put it out? You say, “Williams, you’d have to be a lunatic to do that!” But that’s precisely what we’ve done: turned to the people who created our fiscal crisis to fix it. I have never read a better account of our doing just that than in John A. Allison’s new book, “The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure.”

Allison is the former CEO of Branch Banking and Trust, the nation’s 10th largest bank. He assembles evidence that shows that our financial crisis, followed by the Great Recession, was caused by Congress, the Federal Reserve, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and was helped along by the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama White Houses.

The Federal Reserve, under the chairmanship of Alan Greenspan, created the massive housing bubble by over-expanding the money supply. President Bush and members of Congress, through the Community Reinvestment Act, intimidated banks and other financial institutions into making home loans to people ineligible for loans under traditional lending criteria. They became subprime lenders. Lending institutions made these loans, now often demeaned as predator loans, because they knew they’d be sold to government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Freddie and Fannie.

The GSEs had no problem taking this risky path, because they knew that Congress would force taxpayers to bail them out. Current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is following in the footsteps of his predecessor by massively expanding the money supply by purchasing Treasury debt. He is creating prime conditions for a calamity by the end of this decade.

Then there were the crony capitalists, among whom are Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Countrywide, Bear Stearns, JPMorgan Chase, General Motors and Chrysler. These and many other companies, through the thousands of Washington lobbyists they hire, are able to get Congress to shortcut market forces. Free market capitalism is unforgiving.


South Carolina Bill Proposes Jail Time for Feds Trying to Enforce Obamacare

South Carolina may soon join the ranks of states struggling to reclaim their constitutional sovereignty stolen from them by the federal government.

On December 11, South Carolina State Representative William Chumley pre-filed a bill in the South Carolina General Assembly that would prevent the enforcement of ObamaCare within the borders of the Palmetto State.

Using language that would prohibit state officials from participating in the implementation of state healthcare exchanges or from enforcing the individual mandate that are key elements of ObamaCare, Chumley’s measure — the South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act — requires state lawmakers to “prevent the enforcement of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” [ObamaCare] within the limits of this state.”

South Carolina, a state with a long history of resisting federal despotism, joins three other states currently considering bills nullifying ObamaCare. The state legislatures of Maine, New Jersey, and Oklahoma have also had bills introduced aimed at stopping ObamaCare at the state border.

Simply stated, nullification is a concept of constitutional law that recognizes the right of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution. Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare decision, state legislators and governors are boldly asserting their right to restrain the federal government, and are accordingly considering bills that will stop ObamaCare’s multitude of mandates at the state border.


Happy (or Indignant?) Bill of Rights Day

by Shahid Buttar, Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Today is the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, adopted 221 years ago to protect freedom in America. The principles articulated in the first 10 amendments to our Constitution have long inspired the rest of the world.

While our Founders attempted to enshrine liberty principles as constitutional norms that would trump any law, however, our government has come to routinely violate freedoms of speech, assembly, and association, while also pervasively committingunreasonable searches and seizures, violations of due process, and cruel punishment, all while unapologetically discriminating according to race, ethnicity, and faith

Spanning presidential administrations from each of the major political parties, ongoing abuses such as dragnet surveillance, the undercover infiltration of First Amendment protected groups,paramilitary policing and suppression of dissentracial profiling in the war on drugs, religious profiling in the war on terror, national origin profiling in the war on immigrants, extrajudicial assassination without trial, indefinite military detentionwithout trial, and the disturbing government secrecy that enables each of these violations reveal a whole far worse than the sum of its parts.