About Josh Eboch

Josh Eboch [send him email] has previously served as a research analyst for the Tenth Amendment Center. His articles have appeared in various publications, and he wrote regularly for the Center on issues related to state sovereignty and nullification.

Author Archive | Josh Eboch

Chuck Norris: Obama vs. the 10th Amendment

By on March 2, 2010 in Big Government, Constitution, Founding Principles, Health Care

chuck_norrisChuck Norris has delivered a roundhouse kick to national health care “reform” at World Net Daily; noting for the umpteenth time that there is in fact no constitutional authority whatsoever for the ongoing federal efforts.

He said

As I watched the C-SPAN health-care summit charade Thursday, what disturbed me most was not the typical partisan rancor, but why the federal government was even dealing with this issue at all.

It isn’t that I’m unsympathetic to the plight of the needy. It isn’t that I don’t think our health-care system needs some serious overhaul. I just believe our founders had it right when they laid down the constitutional laws restricting the feds from meddling into the lives of ordinary American citizens.

But, unlike many political pundits, Norris didn’t stop there. He went on to slaughter the twin sacred cows of Medicare and Medicaid as well as call for outright nullification.

The point is, based upon the 10th Amendment, when it comes to legislating and controlling our health care, the federal government doesn’t have a constitutional leg to stand on. And even its past violations of the 10th Amendment by implementing government health-care services have proven to break more national legs than mend them. The proof is in the pudding. How many times does it have to be pointed out to Washington? Medicare is going bankrupt. Medicaid is going bankrupt. Case closed. The government is inept in running America’s health-care system…

Thomas Jefferson simply and forthrightly declared, “Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force” (Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:380). “Undelegated powers” obviously refers to those powers not granted by the Constitution. Health-care laws for all Americans are “undelegated powers.” And such acts therefore would be “unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Finally, Norris addressed the fact that our arrogant federal government no longer even respects the very document from which its authority is derived.

The abuse of federal political power to intervene in areas such as Americans’ private health care could exist only in a nation which no longer holds its leaders accountable to its Constitution, and a leadership that regards itself as above its people and its Constitution. Sadly, I was listening to an interview the other day in which President Obama described the Constitution as “an imperfect document … a document that reflects some deep flaws … an enormous blind spot … and that the framers had that same blind spot.” In so doing, the president established a rationale and justification for disregarding, disavowing and disposing the Constitution from oversight and interplay in his administration and decisions. Even worse, he placed himself above the Constitution and those “blind framers” who just couldn’t see the big picture as he does today…

He even threw in a shout out to TAC for good measure.

I would encourage you to go to the Tenth Amendment Center and learn more about your 10th Amendment rights, and then fight for those rights by holding all your representatives accountable to them.

Well said, Mr. Norris. You’ve never been much of an actor, but you still kick ass in my book.

Comments { 5 }

Are Same Sex Marriage Advocates Actually Tenthers?

By on February 25, 2010 in Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty

martha-coakleyThey are if they oppose the federal Defense of Marriage Act on constitutional grounds. Which, as it turns out, is exactly what supporters of same sex marriage are doing in Massachusetts.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Last week, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley moved for summary judgment in a lawsuit, filed last July, brought by the Bay State against the federal government challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In its lawsuit, Massachusetts has argued that DOMA’s definition of marriage violates the 10th Amendment as well as the Constitution’s Spending Clause by forcing “the Commonwealth to engage in invidious discrimination against its own citizens in order to receive and retain federal funds in connection with two joint federal-state programs.”

Wow, Martha’s complaint sounds an awful lot like it could have been lodged against ObamaCare!

One can only hope that cases like this will help bring more people on both sides to the inevitable conclusion that if federalism can work to release the pressure of one divisive cultural issue in 50 different directions, it can do the same for all such issues.

Here’s a novel idea: Rather than citing the Constitution when we like it, and ignoring it when we don’t, let’s stop asking or allowing the feds to exercise any power that isn’t specifically enumerated, from subsidizing health care to defining marriage to prosecuting the war on drugs.

Comments { 1 }

Virginia Firearms Freedom Act to Be Heard By Senate Committee this Week

By on February 24, 2010 in Firearms Freedom Act, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty

Got an email blast over the weekend from Campaign for Liberty’s Donna Holt about the status of HB69 (Virginia Firearms Freedom Act).

Looks like

Delegate Carrico’s HB69 has been assigned to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee.

The Senate Courts of Justice Committee meets on Mondays and Wednesdays. The bill is not on the docket for Monday but could come up as soon as Wednesday, February, 24 at 2PM in Senate Room “A” of the General Assembly building.

We need all hands on deck. If this bill is not reported out of committee, it dies and will not go to the floor for a vote. We have come too far to give up now.  Please contact the members of this committee and urge them to support HB69.

Here is a list of the members of that committee:

Senator Henry L. Marsh III (D) – Chairman
Senator Richard L. Saslaw (D)
Senator Frederick M. Quayle (R)
Senator Thomas K. Norment, Jr. (R)
Senator Janet D. Howell (D)
Senator L. Louise Lucas (D)
Senator John S. Edwards (D)
Senator W. Roscoe Reynolds (D)
Senator Linda T. Puller (D)
Senator Mark D. Obenshain (R)
Senator Ryan T. McDougle (R)
Senator R. Creigh Deeds (D)
Senator Robert Hurt (R) – Co-patron
Senator A. Donald McEachin (D)
Senator J. Chapman Petersen (D)

Donna was even kind enough to include a suggested script for residents of Virginia:

Dear Senator _________________,

On January 18, 2010 I was one of approximately 2400 citizens who came to the state capitol to lobby and rally for support of Delegate Bill Carrico’s HB69, the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act.

Opponents argue that the bill would empower terrorists, gangs or criminals to engineer super weapons with daunting powers. The truth is that such weapons requires the use of a desensitized bursting charge with the use of chemicals (TNT, Trinitrophenol, RDX…) with a fuse (set with delay to explode inside the target) and HB69 does not allow federal deregulation of high-powered super weapons.

The Virginia Firearms Freedom Act is about much more than firearms. It is a bill that will redefine the federal government’s over-reaching use of the commerce clause to regulate even intrastate commerce.

Will you vote “yes” to report HB69 out of the committee in defense of the 2nd amendment rights of the citizens of Virginia. This legislation will effectively reassert our state’s rights under the 10th amendment putting commerce within the borders of the Commonwealth back in the control of the state?

Sincerely,

(Your name)

Please help us keep the Tenth Amendment’s win streak alive in Virginia.

Comments { 0 }

Intellectual Consistency on the Left? Now That’s What I Call Progress

By on February 19, 2010 in Republocrats, Sovereignty Movement, The Opposition

work-in-progressEven before recent health care nullification efforts, writers at the Tenth Amendment Center were calling for a federalism-driven debate on standard liberal issues like gay marriage, REAL ID, and medical marijuana. Finally, it seems, someone on the Left has recognized the wisdom of that strategy.

I almost fell out of my chair this morning upon reading a post on the popular progressive blog FireDogLake:

…progressives need to support the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act.

Protecting Americans from corporatist greed and influence should be at the heart of what we are about.

And– it helped get Obama elected– no mandates. period. And no nut job at Aetna or in the government should keep you from spending your own money on legal health care.

Supporters have been accused of “nullification” — a not subtle claim that somehow if these efforts succeed, and are contrary to federal health care law (in both House and Senate versions), supporters seek a pre-civil war mentality.

And, of course, there is federal supremacy– so the efforts are futile.

But, what of DOMA? Aren’t Progressives in favor of same sex marriage via state efforts the same? Umm, yes.

But what of federal drug laws? Aren’t Progressives in favor of liberal medical marijuana state laws the same? Umm, yes.

But what of the right to die laws like in Oregon? The SCOTUS has actually decided IN FAVOR of Oregon in this state’s rights case… even though there are federal laws against it.

Progressives must be consistent intellectually— especially when conservatives are not. [emphasis added]

Support the Health Care Freedom Act in Arizona and around the country.

It is hard to overstate the significance of this point. If the Left as well as the Right can start to see that decentralization of power through federalism is the answer to intractable partisan gridlock and divisive culture wars, the tenthers can join forces with those on both sides who only desire more freedom and prosperity.

And then Washington’s corrupt, corporatist, top-down power structure will really be in trouble.

Comments { 3 }

South Carolina to Ban Federal Currency?

By on February 18, 2010 in Constitution, Constitutional Tender, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty

money-toilet-paperImagine my shock upon opening the Drudge Report this morning and seeing this article from CBSNews.com:

South Carolina Rep. Mike Pitts has introduced legislation that would mandate that gold and silver coins replace federal currency as legal tender in his state.

In an interview, Pitts told Hotsheet that he believes that “if the federal government continues to spend money at the rate it’s spending money, and if it continues to print money at the rate it’s printing money, our economic system is going to collapse.”

“The Germans felt their system wouldn’t collapse, but it took a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread in the 1930s,” he said. “The Soviet Union didn’t think their system would collapse, but it did. Ours is capable of collapsing also.”

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

… As one expert told the Scoop, however, his bill would likely be ruled unconstitutional because it “violates a perfectly legal and Constitutional federal law, enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, that federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts public and private.”

Now, I know there are folks out there who understand this much better than me, but I don’t think that “expert” is correct. And besides, I am always particularly wary when “experts” start citing the Commerce Clause. That’s usually statist code for “It’s not actually in the Constitution, but we’re going to do it anyway.”

If my memory serves, the Constitution only gives Congress the power to coin money, not print it. That’s a crucial difference, considering that precious metals are, by definition, precious, and will continue to be valuable long after you’ve burned those green pieces of paper in your wallet for heat.

CLICK HERE – to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Constitutional Tender Legislation Tracking Page

Comments { 7 }

Firearms Freedom Passes VA House

By on February 16, 2010 in Announcements, Firearms Freedom Act, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty

In what must be an unprecedented string of victories for advocates of state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment in Virginia, HB 69, the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act, passed the House of Delegates today with a bi-partisan vote of 70-29.

HB 69:

Declares that firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Virginia and retained within the borders of Virginia are not subject to federal law or regulation under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

It’s now headed to the Senate. If you live in Virginia, call your state senator and make sure they are prepared to vote yes on HB 69.

CLICK HERE – for the Tenth Amendment Center’s Firearms Freedom Act Tracking Page

Comments { 1 }

Virginia Sovereignty Resolution Passes the House

By on February 16, 2010 in Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty

When it rains, it pours. After stalling in committee last year, HJ 125, the Virginia Sovereignty Resolution, has passed the House by a vote of 76-20.

The Resolution:

Urges Congress to honor state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of 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 United States Constitution.

This victory for federalism comes close on the heels of passage by both houses of several Virginia Health Care Freedom Acts, which are on their way to Gov. McDonnell’s desk at this very moment.

There has been much criticism of state sovereignty resolutions as toothless by those who feel states should be doing more to resist Washington. But, while it’s true they can and should do more, these state resolutions are a crucial first step to educate and inform the general public.

Unfortunately, many Americans no longer even understand the structure of divided sovereignty that was set up by the Constitution. Before the average citizen will support measures with real “teeth,” they must become re-familiarized with the Tenth Amendment, and acclimated to the notion that the federal government is in fact NOT supreme in anything but those spheres of power specifically delegated to it by the Constitution.

That is the significance of these resolutions, and that is why Virginians should contact their state senators to urge support for this crucial measure.

CLICK HERE – to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Tracking Page for 10th Amendment Resolutions Nationwide

Comments { 4 }

Question With(out) Boldness: In Which Glenn Beck Jumps the Shark

By on February 13, 2010 in Big Government, Media, Republocrats, The Opposition

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

- Thomas Jefferson

At the risk of being redundant, I must join Michael in pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of Glenn Beck’s hatchet job of a radio interview this past week with Texas gubernatorial candidate, Debra Medina.

Although he has long styled himself as an inconoclast; repeatedly reciting the above quote from Thomas Jefferson (to the point of including it in his TV show’s opening credits), Beck still seems to believe that, beyond the existence of God, there are some things that must never ever be questioned.

And apparently one of them is the integrity of the federal government’s version of events leading up to the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001.

Far be it from any citizen to wonder if there might be more to that story than what they have been told. After all, the federal government has never treated its subjects (Whoops, I meant “the people”) with anything but candor and respect.

But, in the end, despite his irrational attempts to paint Medina’s healthy skepticism of government as fringe conspiracy theorizing, it is Beck’s own integrity that has been called into question yet again.

There is nothing un-patriotic or un-American about simply questioning a government that has proven itself to be untrustworthy time and again, but there was something distinctly authoritarian about Beck’s knee-jerk response to Medina and her supporters.

And, for me, his arrogant dismissal of a woman with a lot of great ideas and a demonstrated respect for the Constitution was inexcusable.

In the past I have been willing to forgive Beck’s blind spot for federalism and the state sovereignty movement because I figured that he was leading people to those issues anyway. I was even willing to ignore his inexplicable Lincoln-worship because I know how confusing history must be for a “libertarian” neo-con.

But now that he is actively doing damage to the liberty movement by discrediting a viable candidate (with slobbering obsequiousness to the establishment statists she could very well have beaten) for what was essentially a semantic disagreement, Glenn Beck has officially jumped the shark in my mind.

It’s a shame, considering his powerful platform, and I desperately wanted to see him advance liberty rather than hinder it.

But how far can we trust the principles of a man who sees no problem with hosting a rally to “restore the Constitution” in the temple of one of its worst enemies?

It would seem my hopes for Glenn Beck to finally realize that adherence to the Constitution is the only “truth” that matters were misplaced. Over the homage of reason, blindfolded fear wins again.

Comments { 11 }

Health Care Freedom Bill Passes VA House

By on February 12, 2010 in Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty

More good news coming out of the Virginia General Assembly Thursday:

Del. Bob Marshall’s health freedom bill, HB 10, passed the House of Delegates 72-26.

The Senate bills on this issue, SB 283, SB 311 and SB 417, all passed the House Commerce and Labor committee by 17-5 margins and are headed to the floor.

At this point, several versions of the Health Care Freedom Act, which would effectively nullify various unconstitutional aspects of proposed federal health care legislation, have passed the Senate (SB417, SB283, SB311), and another has passed the House (HB10). If and when either chamber passes the other’s bill, Bob McDonnell will have the privilege of signing Health Care Freedom into law in Virginia.

And, though he may not realize it yet, Gov. McDonnell will also be delivering an important message to the politicians in Washington: Get back into your constitutional box, or We the People will put you there.

Comments { 5 }

Nullification, Secession, and the Human Scale of Political Order

By on February 8, 2010 in Big Government, Federalism, History

Logo of the Abbeville Institute

Logo of the Abbeville Institute

For three days last week, on the third floor of the Francis Marion Hotel in downtown Charleston, SC, a group of scholars have been meeting to discuss the history of nullification and secession in American law and politics, and the continued relevance of those concepts today.

I had the privilege of joining them for the weekend-long event, hosted by the Abbeville Institute, entitled Nullification, Secession, and the Human Scale of Political Order, and it has been an amazing learning experience.

Accomplished scholars such as Abbeville founder Donald Livingston, Thomas DiLorenzo, Thomas Naylor, Marshall DeRosa, Kirkpatrick Sale, Yuri Maltsev, and Kent Masterson Brown all addressed the gathering of well over 100 attendees during the course of the weekend.

We learned that, in politics at least, size does matter, and smaller is better. Fifty percent of countries have populations of less than 5.5 million people, including nine of the top ten in terms of wealth per capita, and nine of the fourteen freest states on the planet.

Which would come as no surprise to political philosophers throughout history, from Aristotle to David Hume, who have long argued that, like a metastasizing cancer cell, there is a point at which (republican pretensions notwithstanding) a centralized nation’s growth can render it dangerous and ungovernable.

The Soviet Union learned this fact in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, as Yuri Maltsev, a former adviser to Boris Yeltsin and senior scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, reminded the group. Though the Soviet leaders had no interest in republican pretensions, to stay in power, they were forced to control the lives of hundreds of millions of people spread across eleven time zones and one sixth of the Earth’s surface. Unfortunately, Yuri noted, the only way to do this was through mass murder, and even that eventually failed when the regime literally ran out of bullets.

Which is largely why those in America who understand history’s lessons, and value individual rights as they were enshrined by our Declaration of Independence, have begun to look seriously for ways to reestablish a society that values rights over might. The founder of the Second Vermont Republic, Thomas Naylor, believes his state can serve as the model for such a society one day.

First though, we have to convince fellow Americans that our nation has in fact transitioned from republic to empire, and that the only way to regain our prosperity and moral standing as a nation of free men and women is to resist the illegal and unconstitutional activities of our government.

Which is where the Tenth Amendment comes in. By pursuing a strategic decentralization of power through the vehicle of state and local nullification and interposition, we as Americans have the power to withdraw our consent peacefully and permanently from a federal government that no longer respects the rule of law.

The agents of that government may or may not then choose to recognize our right to make such a determination for ourselves. That is up to them.

But understanding that self-government is by definition the right of all free people, and then acting on that knowledge, is up to us.

Comments { 9 }