Navigation

Author Archive | Josh Eboch

VA Intrastate Commerce Act up for key vote tomorrow

By on February 14, 2011 in Activism, Announcements, Commentary, Constitution, Federalism, Firearms Freedom Act, Founding Principles, Government, Nullification, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 0

Last year in Virginia, activists scored a big victory for the Tenth Amendment with the passage of HB10, the Health Care Freedom Act, but they also suffered a significant defeat. The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA), which forbid the federal government from enforcing its gun regulations on weapons and ammunition made and sold exclusively in Virginia, passed the House of Delegates in 2010 only to be killed in the Senate’s notorious ”Death Star” sub-committee.

The siginifcance of the FFA was of course not just about firearms freedom. It was also about the precedent such a law would have set for returning the federal government to its constitutional role, and restoring some measure of state sovereignty. Unfortunately, by killing the bill, a tiny minority of Virginia Senators left the entire commonwealth open to federal attack on issues that go well beyond gun control, up to and <a href="http://www.tent Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 0

Montana lawmaker seeks to create state militia

By on February 10, 2011 in Constitution, Federalism, Government, Military, Originalism, State Sovereignty 0

In a move that will hopefully be copied nationwide over the next few years, Montana lawmakers are considering forming and training an armed volunteer force of “home guards” certified by the governor and not subject to federal oversight. These home guards would be under the direct authority of the county sherriffs and the governor during any state emergency.

According to the Billings Gazette:

Supporters said the bill is not about arming citizens but to provide additional emergency services as some other states do.

A number of states have a state defense force like a “home guard” for responding to emergencies but few states have an armed force like the bill proposes.

As you might expect, the idea of a sovereign state organizing its citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights has met with considerable shock, outrage and hyperbole from the Left. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 0

Virginia puts the federal government on notice–again

By on February 1, 2011 in Uncategorized 0

Virginia’s House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly in favor of another pro-federalism measure on Monday. By a count of 65-33, the House passed HR46, the State Sovereignty Resolution.

Its summary as introduced:

Expresses the sense of the House of Delegates that the Congress of the United States be urged to honor state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and claims sovereignty for the Commonwealth under the Tenth Amendment over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

This is the legislature’s way of politely telling the federal government to butt out of issues that are not under its constitutional purview. Unfortunately, it is also largely symbolic. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 0

The 10th Amendment Revolution is alive and well in Virginia

By on January 20, 2011 in Uncategorized 0

Much like last year, Virginia’s 2011 General Assembly session is chock full of bills and resolutions that seek to strengthen federalism and the state sovereignty protections of the Tenth Amendment. One of those, HB1438, would prevent the federal government from regulating anything produced and sold exclusively within the state of Virginia.

Its summary reads:

Goods produced or manufactured in the Commonwealth; not subject to federal regulation. Provides that all goods produced or manufactured within the Commonwealth, when such goods are held, retained, or maintained in the Commonwealth, shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the constitutional power of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The bill does not apply to goods ordered, procured, or purchased by the federal government or by a federal contractor. The bill only applies to goods produced or manufactured on or after July 1, 2011.

Such a bill would have far-reaching implications from food to firearms. It would effectively block implementation of the abominable “Food Patriot Act” in the same way that last year’s HB10, the Health Care Freedom Act, helps protect Virginians from the individual mandate in ObamaCare. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 0

VA Senator McEachin: The 10th Amendment has been “Deemed” Unconstitutional

By on August 6, 2010 in State Sovereignty, The Opposition 2

From Henrico Senator, Donald McEachin, and courtesy of the Richmonder blog, comes the latest flaccid attempt to cast the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as alternately “unconstitutional”, “illegal” and “neo-confederate”.

It seems McEachin is perturbed by Gov. McDonnell’s recent decision not to publicly confirm or deny the fact that sovereign states have the power to judge for themselves the constitutionality of federal laws. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 2

ObamaCare or Federalism: There Can Be Only One

By on April 5, 2010 in Health Care, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 2

Being the statists that they are, it’s only natural Congress and the president should think simply passing and signing a bill makes it reality. But, in reality, a law with implications as vast as ObamaCare requires wholehearted state cooperation to implement. Cooperation unlikely to be soon forthcoming.

Upwards of 30 states currently have plans to oppose the so-called “reform” bill (along with other myriad federal actions) in some manner, and as Armstrong Williams notes this week in the Washington Times:

the actions of the states speak to a larger political dilemma for the Obama administration and any future initiatives it pursues. You can’t keep jamming unwanted and unpopular national measures [like a VAT, for instance] through Congress, hoping it’ll get sorted out later. The White House is slated next to consider reauthorizing federal education programs. Does it honestly believe states should sit this one out, let alone acquiesce on that important 10th Amendment prerogative?

Sooner or later the looming choice will have to be made. Will the states continue to abet their own slide into political irrelevance, accepting along with ObamaCare, and countless other unfunded mandates, their permanent status as mere administrative arms of the federal government?

Or will they stand up for their citizens, and for the system of dual sovereignty established and ratified by the independent states when they formed the federal government to act as their common agent?

It’s possible, even likely, that most states will eventually roll over for (increasingly worthless) federal fiat dollars, but it only takes one state, like Virginia, with an Attorney General like Ken Cuccinelli, to keep stirring the pot, and before too long, the whole damn country will be reading, understanding, and expecting fidelity to our Constitution.

Which may lead to an even bigger set of problems for Democrats (and Big Government Republicans) than this November’s mid-term elections.

Williams continues

In the Democrats’ blind zeal to pass their leftist policies, they are by default writing checks they know they can’t cash. That massive bout of irresponsibility doesn’t just end with aimless numbers on a congressional budget page. Contrary to what the president and party Democrats believe, our nation’s debt is “not all on paper…”

Every statewide elected official… woke up last Monday morning with the stark realization that they now have to pay for the mess Congress has created. And I guarantee you every one of them began the thought process with similar words, “Unlike Washington, we have to balance our budgets. What are we going to do?”

What, indeed?

Crossposted from Tertium Quids.

Continue Reading 2

Rachel Maddow’s Blog Targets VA Tenthers

By on March 26, 2010 in Media, Tenthers, The Opposition 5

I guess we should be pleased; Rachel Maddow’s blog reads the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center.

It’s true, her blog linked to a picture we posted from the January 18th Lobby Day. Of course, it was done in the context of describing us tenthers as “out-there,” but when you’re as unappreciated as the Constitution is these days, any press is good press.

Later, Rachel Maddow’s blog weighed in on the audacity of Virginia’s very own Ken Cuccinelli:

At the head of the line of states planning to sue the federal government over health reform stands Virginia, where Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced Monday that he would file papers as soon as the Presidents “signs it into law.” …Cuccinelli thinks it’s unconstitutional for Americans to be told they have to buy something, an argument he’s been making for a while now.

As Rachel’s blog has brilliantly perceived, such “arguments” are merely partisan grandstanding. I mean, it’s the 21st Century; who has time to actually follow the Constitution anymore?

But then Rachel’s blog noticed something really interesting (read: seditious)

If you call the AG’s office to ask about all this, you first get Cuccinelli’s director of communication, Brian Gottstein… Gottstein is himself a veteran of the tenther and Tea Party circuit. The former Libertarian columnist, who joined Cuccinelli’s staff in February, was still listed last week as the VP for communications for Tertium Quids, whose president appeared at [a] 10th Amendment rally with Cuccinelli…

Unbelieveable. Not only does Virginia’s new Attorney General read the Constitution (including the 10th Amendment) and take it seriously, he hires people and appears at events with organizations that do the same!

This aggression will not stand, man.

Tune in next week as Rachel Maddow’s blog continues its quest to speak truth to power by bravely licking Joe Biden’s bootheel.

Continue Reading 5

Nullification In the News: Get Used to It

By on March 25, 2010 in Media, Nullification, The Opposition 2

As predicted, Congressional passage of President Obama’s sweeping health insurance “reform” bill has not ended the constitutional debate between federal and state authority. On the contrary, America seems poised to confront those issues directly, and with a force not seen in over a century.

As with the the first time around, those who shill for centralized power do so at the expense of liberty and government by consent. Observe this from the Talking Points Memo blog:

There’s a lot of nonsense out there about constitutional challenges to the Health Care Reform law on various ‘state sovereignty’ grounds. That’s nonsense. The Nullification Crisis and Civil War settled those issues.

Nonsense? First of all, learn history. The Nullification Crisis was a victory for those who opposed the unconstitutional assumption of “powers not delegated” by the federal government. It was also a perfect example of how meaningful checks on central power make a voluntary union stronger, not weaker.

Second of all, the War Between the States didn’t settle anything other than the fact that our union is no longer voluntary. Following such illogic, one wonders if the philosopher kings at TPM would have considered America’s colonial status to be permanently “settled” if Britain had won the Revolutionary War.

Probably. Statists are always grovelling toward the nearest locus of power. But they would be wrong.

Force of arms has never and can never decide questions of natural law. And there is no natural law more fundamental than the right of free people to be governed by their own consent.

Though our founders’ vision has been perverted over the years, the system of dual sovereignty they bequeathed us is clear: Sovereign states and sovereign people have the same power to judge the constitutionality of federal laws as the federal government now claims exclusively for itself.

Through nullification, interposition, and yes, even secession, if necessary.

So take note TPM and others of your ilk: If you want to surrender yourselves up to be ravished by the insatiable welfare/warfare State, go right ahead. Just don’t expect to take us with you.

We know what is at stake, we are more than ready for this battle, and we have not even begun to fight.

Continue Reading 2

Reclaiming the Commerce Clause in Virginia

By on March 9, 2010 in Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 0

CommerceFor decades, using a tortured definition of interstate commerce, Congress has tried to regulate everything, from wheat grown on an individual’s own land for personal consumption, to weed grown in an individual’s own home for the same purpose. Unfortunately (with some notable dissenters aside), the Supreme Court has largely condoned and encouraged such reprehensible legislative behavior.

But now, adding to a banner year for the 10th Amendment in the Commonwealth, Virginia is once again leading the way in saying “Back Off” to the feds.

In late February, the House of Delegates passed HB 18, introduced by Delegate Mark Cole, which

Provides that all goods manufactured or made in Virginia and all services performed in Virginia, when such goods or services are held, maintained, or retained in Virginia, shall not be subject to the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce. The measure shall not relate to goods or services ordered, procured, or purchased by the federal government or by a federal contractor.

Such bill might not at first seem revolutionary — until one considers how much of our current unconstitutional federal leviathan the Supreme Court has attempted to stuff behind that tiny fig leaf known as the Commerce Clause.

From ObamaCare to Cap and Trade to the Controlled Substances Act, there are countless instances in which goods or services that consumers might want to purchase, and which could be produced and consumed exclusively within Virginia (or any other state), could be considered in violation of existing or future federal law.

With the passage of a bill like HB 18, Virginia would become the first state to reject the ludicrous and intellectually dishonest constitutional rationale that underpins so much federal activity, and reclaim the rightful authority to regulate commerce within its own borders.

CLICK HERE – for the Tenth Amendment Center’s Legislative Tracking page for States Seeking to Nullify Federal Power over Intrastate Commerce

Continue Reading 0

Should Liberals Champion States’ Rights?

By on March 4, 2010 in Federalism, State Sovereignty 2

Regular readers of this blog will know that the answer to that question is a resounding YES! But for many people in America, particularly those on the left side of the political spectrum, the notion of states’ rights is as repulsive as it is misunderstood.

Of course, if they grasped the concept of federalism and divided sovereignty as it was framed by our Constitution, they would realize that, although appeals to states’ rights have been used in the past to deny individual rights, today it is the federal government’s political monopoly that is by far the biggest threat to freedom.

The good news is lately there have been signs of liberals recognizing exactly that. As Jason O’Mahony writes on his blog

The fact is, the US is more culturally divided than ever, and maybe it is time to recognise that. Maybe its time that certain rights, and control over rights (abortion, gun control, same-sex marriage, death penalty, campaign finance) be devolved, by a new constitutional amendment, to the states. Yes, it will mean that in some red states women will lose the right to have abortions. But it’ll also mean that in some states far more strict gun control, or gay marriage will be permitted, and all without liberals and conservatives fearing that the other side will stack  the supreme court with their people, and override those rights. People can just move to the states that reflect their values…

Other than his call for what would be a redundant constitutional amendment, Jason is exactly right. These issues and many others are extremely divisive, and will continue to be so until Americans can find a way to release the pressure.

Fortunately, in their brilliance, our founders planned ahead for this situation and included just such a mechanism within the Bill of Rights. It’s called the Tenth Amendment, it reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states and the people, and by doing so makes it much more difficult to control the behavior of those with whom we disagree.

The fact is, the US is more culturally divided than ever, and maybe it is time to recognise that. Maybe its time that certain rights, and control over rights (abortion, gun control, same-sex marriage, death penalty, campaign finance) be devolved, by a new constitutional amendment, to the states. Yes, it will mean that in some red states women will lose the right to have abortions. But it’ll also mean that in some states far more strict gun control, or gay marriage will be permitted, and all without liberals and conservatives fearing that the other side will stack  the supreme court with their people, and override those rights. People can just move to the states that reflect their values (something which will, I suspect, hurt the red states far more than they realise, but that their business)

Continue Reading 2