Jackson County, Michigan Passes 2nd Amendment Preservation Resolution

By a 9-0 vote on June 18, the County Commissioners in Jackson County, Michigan unanimously approved a resolution in support of the 2nd Amendment.

The resolution promises to reject any attempt by the federal government to violate the 2nd Amendment and pledges non-compliance from the county if such an attempt were to happen.

It reads, in part:

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Jackson County Board of Commissioners, in the State of Michigan, believes it important to protect the individual’s right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, and that any attempt to place restrictions on any lawfully possessed firearms that are legal and unrestricted shall be rejected.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Jackson County Board of Commissioners supports the constitution of the United States, specifically the second amendment, and shall refrain from supporting any legislation that attempts to infringe on these inalienable rights.

Local support will play a vital role in the success of those who want to protect the right to keep and bear arms. The resolution is a great first step, as it gets the commissioners on record in support of the 2nd Amendment. But, since it’s non-binding, it will require another step to have concrete effect. Cities within the county – and the county board itself – should follow up this resolution with ordinances prohibiting any cooperation with federal agents attempting to enforce acts violating the Second Amendment. Such an ordinance will give these statements teeth.

Details

Even a Blind Squirrel Sometimes Finds a Nut

The Supreme Court just released its opinion on DOMA, and Prop 8.  The justices showed some rare wisdom here, and even applied the Constitution in ways I never expected them to.  I suppose, just when you are certain of the utter uselessness of an organization, they can perform one righteous act to make a liar out of you.

First let me explain what the Constitutional position of the federal government should be on marriage.

None.

It’s that simple. Marriage is not mentioned once in the Constitution. It is not related to an enumerated power, and as a religious institution, it is arguably forbidden for the feds to pass laws concerning it under the First Amendment.

But, I will allow one disclaimer to this position: the full faith and credit clause in Article4:

“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

Both gay rights activists and traditional marriage protectionists rely upon this clause to make the claim that America must either embrace or ban the practice of gay marriage across the nation.  This fight comes down to contract rights.  Gay marriage proponents ask: if marriage is a contract drawn up in one state, why is another state not bound to enforce it?   This is the same argument slave owners used to force the northern states to return runaway slaves during the ante-bellum American period.

Details

Spying on Kids to Improve Education?

Bill Gates has an idea.  In order to improve academic performance, teachers should be monitored all day, every day.  A preposterous waste of resources and manpower, you say?  Well, not to worry, because said monitoring will be done by video cameras.  Installed in every classroom in America.  And, if you act today, all this can…

Details

Is Utah Becoming ‘Tread-proof’?

SALT LAKE CITY – With the passage of HB 131, the Constitutional and Federalism Defense Act, Utah has taken a firm stance against the central government’s assault on states’ rights. “[If] we want to be a sovereign we have to act like one,” said Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, committee co-chair. The bill, signed by Gov.…

Details

Heritage Foundation Questions Supremacy of Robed Federal Goons

If you follow conservative politics, you should be familiar with the Heritage Foundation.

Heritage was probably the most influential Washington D.C. think tank during the Bush Administration. It has long acted as a cheerleader for all kinds of federal power usurpations and rightfully received criticism for proposing legislation that was basically a forbearer for Obamacare. Heritage also frequently criticizes the principles of nullification. The organization often acts as a conservative wolf in sheep’s clothing, advocating for unlimited federal power.

That’s what makes Is the Supreme Court the Final Word? by Rich Tucker, extra surprising. Tucker writes, “Supreme Court decisions are crucial, but they are not the final word. It’s our duty as American citizens to keep pushing back, through all three branches of government, against any proposal that violates the Constitution. That’s the way to make sure our union can endure for another 225 years.”

The article gets even better from there. Tucker argues that pushback “works at the state level as well” listing ballot proposals as a way to circumvent Supreme Court rulings.

It’s unfortunate that he didn’t bring up the Jefferson-Madison-approved rightful remedy of nullification, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. Here we have a conservative think tank actually suggesting that Supreme Court justices are not our overlords, their words are not canon, and that we should fight for constitutional government regardless of what asinine opinions they might offer.

It is this line of thinking the Tenth Amendment Center has pushed since its inception. Still, we should remain skeptical and ask questions about this new tact from Heritage. You have to wonder, why is it opening its mind to the idea of resisting the courts all of a sudden? Why are these folks changing their tune? How come it has taken them so long to come to these conclusions when the answers are clear within the writings of the Founding Fathers?

Details

How Do We Determine the Original Meaning of the Constitution?

How do we determine the meaning of the Constitution? Where do we ultimately find the authoritative source for original understanding? Do we look to the Supreme Court? To the Federalist Papers? To notes from the Philadelphia Convention?

Actually, we should look to the ratifiers. They were the ones who represented the people and agreed to approve the Constitution. Jefferson affirmed this idea.

“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

This video, with narration from the audio version of Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty, explains this idea in more depth.

WATCH IT:

Details

Tom Merchant Fails to Make the Sale

Tom Merchant, for the Sentinel Tribune, wrote an article called, “Between the Lines,” focusing on the recent NSA surveillance revelations. In his effort to defend the NSA’s actions, he listed a few of the amendments from the Bill of Rights and argues that many are now antiquated.

He made cases against the Second and Third Amendments to justify his position. There are elements of his arguments that are clearly debatable.

This kind of thinking is clearly dangerous. If we drop the “original intent” of the Constitution to keep up with “the signs of the times,” then none of our rights are truly protected. And if the Constitution needs to be updated, there is something called the Amendment Process.

Merchant writes:

NSA is not actually listening to peoples conversations, but if the government wants to know where I am going out to eat and other mundane things, I really don’t care. It is probably unfortunate that we must give up some of our privacy, but that is just a sign of the times

I really don’t see anything in the amendments that relates to personal privacy, other than the Fourth Amendment preventing the government from unreasonable search and seizure.

Details

Language Should Be For Communication, Not Control

The people we elect and the ones who they appoint cannot be allowed to redefine the meanings of the very words that are intended to limit their power. If they are, then language becomes their tool for controlling us. If they have this tool, they will use it. There is only one answer. The language of the Constitution means what it meant when it was ratified. Any attempt to alter the meaning of the language of the Constitution is, fundamentally, a power grab which must be rejected. If the government really believes it needs a new power, the Congress can submit a Constitutional amendment to the states for ratification. There is no other Constitutionally valid method for the federal government to increase its power and the states and the people must learn to insist that the Constitution be followed – to the letter.

Details

Should ALL laws be enforced? Madison said NO!

In a day and age when the federal government is despised, out-of-control and has so many laws on the books that it makes your head spin, there is at least one ‘conservative’ who is concerned that the federal government isn’t dishing out enough law and order.

In a recent post at the conservative legal blog Volokh Conspiracy, Todd Zywicki finds it appalling that the Department of Justice is celebrating the fact that the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. He doesn’t feel this way because of his opinion on DOMA, but rather he is concerned that the law is being disrespected by the Obama administration.

“I am clearly not alone in being concerned about the unwillingness of state and federal officials to defend the duly-enacted laws of their states. Indeed, refusing to defend the law and acquiescing in an adverse judgment against it seems tantamount to a retroactive veto by the Executive Branch. If Eric Holder is ‘delighted’ that the law is invalid, wouldn’t the appropriate response in our system of government be for the President to propose the repeal of the law with which he disagrees, rather than effectively retroactively vetoing it?”

Zywicki has a point about the law being disrespected by the Obama administration. From drone murders, to illegal surveillance, to arming drug gangs as a pretense to curtail gun rights, to funding Islamic extremist dictators, the Obama administration has made a complete mockery of the rule of law in America. But the recent DOMA ruling isn’t the case to complain about. Whether you support the decision or not, the idea of state non-compliance with federal laws shouldn’t be on trial here. The problem with our country clearly isn’t the fact that too many states have rebelled against the edicts of the federal government. On the contrary, it has been the states routinely jumping into the federal snake pit that has gotten us into this mess.

Details

Sheriff to the Feds: You are on Notice

News outlets in El Dorado County, California, report that a county sheriff has stripped state law enforcement authority from the US Forestry Service.

Sheriff John D’Agostini made the move in response to a high number of complaints coming to his office. He will not go into details about the complaints received, but says he gave the US Forestry Service plenty of opportunity to respond to the complaints.

“The U.S. Forest Service, after many attempts and given many opportunities, has failed to meet that standard.”

The sheriff has sent a letter to the US Forestry Service stating officers will no longer be able to enforce state law in his county.

“The U.S. Forest Service, after many attempts and given many opportunities, has failed to meet that standard.”

CBS 13 in Sacramento contacted a law professor to ask him if the sheriff’s actions are legal.

“Looks to me as though the sheriff can do this,” he said. “They don’t have state powers in the first place, but essentially the sheriff can deputize individuals to have authority in his or her jurisdiction.”

Fact: federal agencies do not have state powers. Due to the Constitution’s structure of dual sovereignty, the feds have no authority to enforce state laws. Furthermore, states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws.

Details