by Darcy Olsen, Goldwater Institute Last week, Goldwater Institute attorney Nick Dranias argued before the Ninth Circuit on behalf of Tombstone, Arizona, defending Tombstone’s right to access its water supply against hostile action by the Obama Administration. As you may remember, last year a devastating combination of wildfires and monsoons ravaged Tombstone’s water supply, leaving…Details
In Part 1 of this series, I explained how our federalism works and how the powers were divided between the states and our national government. The details showed that the states were superior to the federal government on the hierarchy scale and that the 10th amendment protected that position whenever the federal government stepped outside…Details
According to Michigan Rep. Tom McMillin, a bill that would block state cooperation with any attempt to detain people in the United States under sections 1021 or 1022 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act will come up for discussion in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Dec. 11.
The Michigan House of Representatives unanimously voted in favor of House bill HB5768 last week.
The committee meeting is scheduled for 12:30 p.m. Tuesday.
If passed, the law would forbid any state employee or agency assistance with the Federal government – in any way – in the detainment of people under the 2012 NDAA.
“…no agency of this state, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the Michigan national guard on official state duty shall aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act…”
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Dec. 10, 2012) – Tennessee governor Bill Haslam announced Monday that Tennessee will not set up a state-run insurance exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Haslam made the announcement during a speech to Nashville’s Downtown Rotary Club. According to the Tennessean, the governor said he decided not to go through with setting up a state-run exchange “because he’s received insufficient information about how it would operate from the federal government.”
The Volunteer State looked like it might be on track to set up an exchange, despite the legal prohibition for such a move under the Tennessee Health Freedom Act. Tennessee accepted more than $9 million in federal funding earmarked for creation of a state exchange over the last two years. Federal dollars began flowing into the Volunteer State under Gov. Phil Bredesen and continued unabated under Haslam.
The insurance lobby pushed hard for a state run exchange. Grassroots activist groups, including the Tennessee chapter of the Tenth Amendment Center, countered that pressure with a full court press of their own.Details
What we are witnessing all around the country is a political revolution. As time goes by, the revolution will grow huge, into a massive historical event.
The people are beginning to understand what is going on, and are starting to take the necessary steps to reestablish their correct place and boundaries in our federalist system. After so many years of seeing the power usurped, it does my heart good to see steps finally being taken to correct that wrong.
Many times we hear people say that this country is a democracy. That is not true, we are a republic, and we use democracy as a means to pick our representatives in a federalist form of government. Somehow, people seem to conveniently forget that fact. So, what is federalism?
When our founders created the Constitution and established our federal government they did it on two planes, vertically and horizontally. Everyone gets taught the horizontal plane in school where we have the separation of powers between the various branches of government. Unfortunately, they are never taught the vertical plane which is where the whole federalist structure is set in place with a division of power between the national and state governments.Details
The battlefield for drones has been Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and Somalia. But, now they are coming to America.
Drones are known as unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), which are apart of an unmanned aerial system (UAS), which according to the DoD is a, “system whose components include the necessary equipment, network, and personnel to control an unmanned aircraft.” Whereas UAV is, “A powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or non-lethal payload. Ballistic or semi-ballistic vehicles, cruise missiles, and artillery projectiles are not considered unmanned aerial vehicles.”
Currently, federal and local agencies are either using, or they are requesting to start using drones in the US. In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, this act is to address the domestic use of drones in US airspace. By, 2015, UAS should be fully implemented.
However there is no mention of upholding the Fourth Amendment. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” We no longer have the right to be secure in our own homes or have our effects unreasonably searched. In a leaked document it has been determined that not only can the federal government or local governments use drones as a way of surveillance, but so can the US military.
Drones are remotely flown by a user, or flown “autonomously” like out of a Terminator movie. Surveillance capabilities of drones include photography, thermal imaging, audio recording and storage for collected recordable media. The drone also has the ability to transmit data to collections base through a radio signal.Details
So the other day, Cato Institute’s Ted DeHaven compared Treasury Secretary Timmy Geitner to NHL commissioner Gary Bettman. DeHaven pointed out that the Obama administration’s opening proposal to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff” trotted out by Geitner was about as ridiculous and insulting to congressional Republicans as the NHL owners first offer to players in the continuing NHL lockout was.
Seems to me the analogy is pretty accurate.
Weeks after Bettman’s offer to settle, I’m still stuck watching Russian Premier League hockey. And after Geitner’s little speech, we are still hurtling toward that fiscal cliff at high speed.
But as a hockey player, I think we can take the analogy further.
We have Republicans acting like Sean “the Turtle” Avery, or for some of you long-time fans, maybe Claude Lemeiux. You know, running their yaps, taking the occasional cheap shot, generally stirring things up. But refusing to drop the gloves and really fight it out. Let’s be real here – the Republicans don’t have any more intention of actually dealing with the spending problem in D.C. than the Democrats do.
What the American people need is a real enforcer. A Bob Probert or a Tie Domi. You know, somebody who will drop the gloves and actually stand toe-to-toe and fight. Admit it, you would love to see Domi pull Geitner into the penalty box with him like he did to that Philly fan a few years ago.
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
Do you know anyone who voted Republican this past election in order to further President Obama’s big government agenda? Or is it more likely that Republican voters sought to advance a smaller version of the federal government? And if they did, why are Republican congressional leaders offering to help the president spend us into oblivion?
I suspected that those questions might be asked when Mitt Romney was nominated to oppose Obama. My view of his campaign then and now has been that he presented a choice to the voters of big government versus bigger government, and bigger government prevailed. Romney argued during the campaign that he was at a disadvantage because the president had distributed federal tax dollars to persons and groups critical to his re-election. He has since argued that he lost the election because nearly half of Americans – some by chance, some by choice and some by force – are dependent on government for much of their income or subsistence.
His argument sounds harsh, but it’s true. A formerly working and now retired couple in their mid-80s who are receiving monthly payments from the Social Security Administration into which they were forced to make payments while they were working can hardly be considered slackers. But they can be considered dupes. All of us who have fallen for the government’s nonsense about it holding our money for our future use have been duped. The government doesn’t hold anyone’s money for him. It spends whatever it collects as soon as it receives it. When its entitlement bills come due, it uses current tax revenue, or it borrows money in order to acquire the cash to make the payments.
The president knows this. Congress knows it. The courts have endorsed it. In endorsing it, the courts have heldDetails
At a time when the Republican establishment is doing everything they can to alienate their constituents, and nullification measures are getting introduced around the country, it becomes more important than ever to step up and put our best foot forward when presenting our ideas to citizens desperately looking for a way to fight back against unjust federal power. Luckily, we have a shining example to follow in constitutional attorney KrisAnne Hall who gave an eloquent defense of ObamaCare nullification at the Florida Senate Select Committee on Monday, December 3rd.
“Some claim that [ObamaCare] must be submitted to as law of the land since the Supreme Court made its declaration from on high. This admits that we are not a Republic of sovereign states, but a monarchy. The supremacy clause declares the Constitution to be supreme, not the federal government,” Hall said in her stirring repudiation of the bill.Details