Author Archive | Michael Boldin

Marijuana. Pot. Weed. Medicine.

Whatever you call the plant, Washington DC considers it dangerous and illegal. Laws on the books in Congress – illegal. The executive branch – aggressive about enforcing those laws. The supreme court – in 2005 ruled against the idea of states legalizing for any purpose.

But yet, 17 states have been standing up and defying DC on this issue by legalizing marijuana for limited medicinal purposes. And while the feds may huff and puff (pun intended), each year and each subsequent state to get on board has made it more and more difficult for them to enforce their unconstitutional “laws” on the people of these states.

Today, Massachusetts voters made their state the 18th to nullify federal marijuana laws, by a landslide. With more than 30% reporting, Question 3 can be reported as being passed by a vote of 63-37%. The YES vote was in support of a proposed law “to eliminate state criminal and civil penalties related to the medical use of marijuana, allowing patients meeting certain conditions to obtain marijuana produced and distributed by new state-regulated centers or, in specific hardship cases, to grow marijuana for their own use.”

THE NULLIFICATION STORY

In the 1990s, the People of California voted to legalize consumption of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Angel Raich, who had a huge cancerous tumor in her brain was told by her doctor that using marijuana to relieve some of the pain was acceptable.

Marijuana, though, is “illegal” on a federal level in all circumstances, so the feds decided to make an example. Federal agents destroyed Angel’s homegrown marijuana plants without much resistance. Continue Reading →

On last night’s episode of Tenther Radio, Health Care Compacts were the primary discussion. (listen to the show here). There was a constitutional issue that was a sticking point – how do Interstate Compacts become valid?

Let’s begin with the Constitution, Article I, Section 10:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…”

Our guest, Ralph Weber, was pointing out that efforts to use a Health Care Compact to stop Obamacare were a bad choice because Congress and the President would have to approve. Later in the show, I made the point that only congress would have to consent and the President was not needed to approve a state compact.

A listener commented during the show, and Ralph also emailed something similar, backing up the first view:

“Article 1 section 7 clause 3 says Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitation prescribed in the Case of a Bill.”

The view? That “article 1, section 7 clauses 2 and 3 are VERY clear, the president must sign.”

I checked with Rob Natelson after the show. Rob’s one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars. His meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. And, he’s the author of the book, “The Original Constitution.” Here’s what he had to say about this question: Continue Reading →

NOTE: The following was submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State as “The Argument in Support of the Checks and Balances Ballot Proposition” on July 10, 2012. If approved for the ballot in November, 2012, this would be published in a brochure accompanying the ballot question.

Thomas Jefferson stated “The government created by this compact [the US Constitution] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers”

That is why the founders limited the Supremacy Clause to only those federal laws made “in pursuance” of the US Constitution. All federal laws not in pursuance of the limited powers delegated to the federal government in the US Constitution are, by definition, not supreme – and not laws at all.

The founding fathers knew that free elections, separation of powers, and the bill of rights were important protections to our liberties; but that the most important protection was the People themselves in their respective states. Continue Reading →

NOTE: Today is the Tenth Amendment Center’s 6 year anniversary! Founded June 25, 2012

My blog earlier today – Posts from our First Year – garnered some nice feedback. Thank you! With that, I thought it would be good to share a quick top-5 all time list.

So here goes – the 5 most-read Tenth Amendment Center articles – ever.

1. Indiana Senate Passes SR42 Claiming Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/04/09/indiana-senate-passes-sr42-claiming-sovereignty-under-the-10th-amendment/

2. In public statement, TSA lies about the Constitution
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/05/14/in-public-statement-tsa-lies-about-the-constitution/

3. Palin Signs Alaska Sovereignty Resolution
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/13/palin-signs-alaska-sovereignty-resolution/

4. The FDA vs Raw Milk and the Constitution
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/11/the-fda-vs-the-constitution/

5. State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/09/state-sovereignty-movement-quietly-growing/

NOTE: Today is the Tenth Amendment Center’s 6 year anniversary! Founded June 25, 2012

In our first year of operating this site, we generally received about the same amount of traffic every six months that we do in about 2 weeks today. But, there’s some pretty good content on the site from back then – and yes, some…well, “less-good” content too.

The following as the top-five posts on the site through June of 2007. When looking through the statistics, I was a little surprised by how the topics appeared to be quite similar to what they are today – issues over habeas corpus, the drug war, state-level resistance. Real ID was the big one, as that’s what sparked our modern nullification movement. This was my favorite line, “More people and more states must stand up to the federal government and say no!”

1. Limiting Habeas Corpus : Limiting Government Power
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/30/limiting-habeas-corpus-limiting-government-power/

2. Real ID. Rise of the Resistance
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/03/21/real-id-rise-of-the-resistance/

3. The Drug War and the Totalitarian Nightmare
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/03/13/the-drug-war-and-the-totalitarian-nightmare/

4. REAL ID: Opposition in Tennesssee
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/04/09/real-id-opposition-in-tennesssee/

5. REAL ID: Real Resistance
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/26/real-id-real-resistance/

In recent weeks, resistance to federal kidnapping powers in the 2012 NDAA (specifically sections 1021 and 1022 of the Act) has been catching on like wildfire. Virginia this year became the first state in the country to pass a binding law refusing compliance with the act. And yesterday, the Rhode Island House of Representatives passed a resolution rejecting the NDAA – becoming the sixth state to do so.

Harder to tame than a willful statehouse might be a cluster of cities and counties, each one individually nullifying through local law. Local communities are standing up to say NO as well. Towns, cities and counties around the country are being presented with model legislation that they can use to consider a resolution or a binding ordinance and in quick time – a number have already voiced their approval of such action.

On February 5, 2012, the Berkeley City Council passed Resolution No. 61,449-N.S. establishing a policy that “the City will cooperate only with constitutionally valid requests from the federal government, and all actions by the Berkeley Police Department will remain in accord with Amendments 4-8 of the U.S. Constitution, the due process clauses of the California Constitution, and the United Nations Charter, Article 55.” Last night, the Council followed on that resolution with another – this one specifically aimed at the “indefinite detention” provisions of the 2012 NDAA.

After unanimously passing the resolution, Berkeley is now the fifteenth local government around the country to have passed similar legislation.

It states, in part:

the indefinite military detention of any person without trial violates the 5th and 6th amendments of the Constitution of the United States, Article III of the Constitution of the United States, and the Posse Comitatus Act;

But the Council, acting on recommendation from the City’s Peace and Justice Commission, didn’t stop at simply denouncing the unconstitutional federal act. They included language to take their response a step further. It states that they will: Continue Reading →

Just one day after Virginia became the first state in the country to pass an NDAA Nullification bill – refusing to comply with the federal government on “indefinite detention” powers of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act – the Arizona House voted to approve a similar measure, moving that state one step closer to being the 2nd in the nation.

Arizona Senate Bill 1182 (SB1182) states in part that: ”this state and any agency of this state shall not provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012″

Today, the House approved the bill by a vote of 34-22.

“I’m very grateful that the Arizona House just passed my NDAA bill protecting the constitutional rights of our citizens.  These rights must never be taken for granted for any reason.  National security is not a justification for depriving our citizens of their inalienable rights,” bill sponsor Sen. Sylvia Allen said.

SB1182 previously passed the Arizona Senate by a vote of 21-9, and after a minor amendment in the House, now goes back to the Senate for concurrence before being sent to Governor Jan Brewer’s desk for a signature. Opponents have used a number of parliamentary procedures in an effort to delay, stall, or even kill the bill, but grassroots activism has brought it back from the dead on multiple occasions. Most prominently? After passing the Senate by a vote of 21-9, the bill quickly went to a House committee vote and was rejected 5-4. But, a strong grassroots campaign pressed two “swing votes” on the committee to reconsider, and a motion was made within days to do just that. It wasn’t on the calendar but was voted on promptly. It passed the House Rules committee by a vote of 6-3 last month.

Inside sources tell the Tenth Amendment Center that some establishment Republicans want to keep this bill off of Brewer’s desk, and while there is strong support in the Senate in favor, it’s possible that some Senate members will attempt to hold the bill up so that it dies before it ever gets there. Continue Reading →

Today, the Virginia legislature once again approved House Bill 1160 (HB1160), what many refer to as the NDAA Nullification Act. The support was overwhelming, again. In the House today the vote was 89-7 and the Senate concurred a few hours later, 36-1.

The bill “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a United States citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

According to an inside report, bill sponsor Delegate Bob Marshall spoke twice in support of the bill on the House floor today. Delegate Barbara Comstock (a long-time Patriot Act supporter) invoked Michael Chertoff and others as high government officials opposing HB 1160. Basically, she said state legislators have no business questioning the federal government.

Marshall responded with citations to a CRS report demonstrating the vagueness of the law, and its effort to circumvent the Treason Clause. He also noted that state legislators are to be watchdogs against the Federal Government.

In the Senate today, Senator Dick Black (R-Loudoun) and Senator Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax) spoke in favor before the final vote.

THE FULL STORY Continue Reading →

In what supporters hope will be the last round, the Virginia House of Delegates once again approved House Bill 1160 (HB1160), what many refer to as the NDAA Nullification Act. The support was overwhelming, again – with a final vote tally of 89-7.

The bill “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a United States citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

According to an inside report, bill sponsor Delegate Bob Marshall spoke twice in support of the bill. Delegate Barbara Comstock (a long-time Patriot Act supporter) invoked Michael Chertoff and others as high government officials opposing HB 1160. Basically, she said state legislators have no business questioning the federal government.

Marshall responded with citations to a CRS report demonstrating the vagueness of the law, and its effort to circumvent the Treason Clause. He also noted that state legislators are to be watchdogs against the Federal Government.

THE FULL STORY Continue Reading →

Arizona Senate Bill 1182 (SB1182) is one step away from being sent to Governor Jan Brewer for a signature. The bill states in part that:  ”this state and any agency of this state shall not provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012″

After passing the Senate by a vote of 21-9, the bill quickly went to a House committee vote and was rejected 5-4. But, a strong grassroots campaign pressed 2 “swing votes” on the committee to reconsider, and a motion was made within days to do just that.  It wasn’t on the calendar but was voted on promptly. It passed the House Rules committee by a vote of 6-3 last month.

Although the bill was expected to move quickly through the “committee of the whole” in the House and then on to the full house for a floor vote, it didn’t budge. Opponents used parliamentary procedures to try to hold the bill over to next year too – effectively killing it. But again, the grassroots rose up and put pressure on both the Speaker of the House and other key members. SB1182 was placed on the calendar for the House Committee of the Whole today – and passed by a voice vote.

Next step? A vote by the full House – expected soon. (ACTION STEPS AND FULL BILL TEXT BELOW) Continue Reading →