Navigation

Archive | Constitution

Nullify Term Limits?

By on December 28, 2012 in Activism, Constitution, Elections, Federalism, Government, Nullification, Tenthers 4

Term limits are one of most popular political issues of the day.  Most think of achieving this with a Constitutional Amendment, but there is another way: with  nullification.

Before 1995, states were legislating term limits.  Then in Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779,(1995) in a 5 to 4 split decision, the Supreme Court ruled term limits unconstitutional. Their reasoning was that since the U.S. Constitution imposed some qualifications on Congress people, such as age restrictions and citizen requirements. The states could not legislate additional requirements.

In a well reasoned and clear statement for federalism, Clarence Thomas dissented with, “It is ironic that the Court bases today’s decision on the right of the people to ‘choose whom they please to govern them’.” Under our Constitution, there is only one State whose people have the right to ‘choose whom they please’ to represent Arkansas in Congress… Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.”

Justice Thomas is correct. There is no real Constitutional basis for this split Supreme Court ruling. It is the ruling on the whims and political view of five lawyers.  At the end of this Blog are states that still have federal term limits in their laws and/or constitution. As best I can determine, these states still have these statutes on the record. If the governor or Secretary of State deems that in Inc. v. Thornton, the U.S Supreme Court does not have the authority to make their ruling, then they could prevent these multi-term federal politicians from appearing on the ballot. A grass roots effort in these states might persuade one of them to do this. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 4

Federalism and the 10th: The State Reclamation Begins

By on December 14, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Law, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 3

The state governments are now beginning in earnest to do something about the encroaching federal government. Way back in 1994 when the “Republican Revolution” was taking place in Congress the Republican Governors Association (RGA) “adopted” a sort of “declaration of independence” for themselves.  From Congress we got the “Contract with America” and from the RGA we saw a resolution that the states will actively fight against the federal government’s encroachment upon states authority.

Underlying the theme of both “movements” was the idea that the federal government was going beyond its constitutional duties and something needed to be done to bring it back in line. While these had good intentions, they fell short like everything else from the government does. People will always fall back to doing what they know and in the case of government; that is trying to gain power over everything.

At least twelve states had passed resolutions demanding that Congress get rid of all the unfunded federal mandates. Many of the other states asked for “mandate-relief” because they could not afford to implement the mandates. Kansas and South Dakota were probably the most vociferous; they were calling for a constitutional convention and wanted an amendment to our Constitution forbidding the federal government making such mandates.

Many states took up the call and passed resolutions asserting states sovereignty. The language of the resolutions was all similar in nature with their call for the federal government to halt its behavior of violating the 10th Amendment.  Walter Williams had noted:

The 10th Amendment movement may be America’s last chance to peacefully get Congress to obey the Constitution. Politicians have seriously underestimated public anger and are blind to the rebellion spreading across the land.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19941222&id=IBtOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=f-wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3154,3716396

For all their wanting, the RGA still fell short and the states dropped the ball. They were right to stand up and be noticed. It was all talk and no action. Unfortunately, over time, history has shown that people will always revert to what they have been taught. This effort slowly fizzled out as the states and federal government once again began colluding with each other.

The federal government can control things one of two ways. They can do it with the point of a gun or the use of the purse. So, while the states flexed their muscles, President Clinton gave them some of what they wanted to help rebuild their autonomy but he insisted on the federal government controlling the funds and their usage. He did this in his speech to the National Governors Association on Jan. 31, 1995, when he told them:

Even though you’ll have more flexibility to solve your problems, you must be held accountable for how you spend the federal money

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD-1995-02-06/html/WCPD-1995-02-06-Pg151-2.htm

Even though that part of our history proved to be faulty, the idea of the 10th Amendment and the force behind it; is not. Today many states are sick and tired of what the federal government is doing and mandating them to do. We are witnessing the “states political revolution” all over again. The difference here and now is that he states are no longer “asking permission”.

It is always easier to “do” and say you are sorry later, then to ask for permission and wait for denial. Apparently many states have learned the lessons of this folly from the 1994/95 fiasco. States are NOT asking the federal government for permission any more. They are enacting their own laws to nullify the federal government’s mandates.

States are finally stepping up the jurisdiction game and putting authority where it belongs. Several states have already passed medical marijuana laws making the drug legal for medical use. Two states (Washington and Colorado) have completely decriminalized marijuana all together.

This is a direct slap in the face of the federal government’s drug war policies. If EVERY state followed Washington and Colorado’s example, what could the federal government do?  Would they build a wall around the entire United States and say that everyone is in jail because of drug use? These actions, where they states work together to accomplish the same goal is exactly what James Madison was talking about when he said they would band together against the federal encroachment.

There is also a growing consensus among the states to nullify things like ObamaCare. Many states have enacted laws against its implementation. Some states, like Texas, even lay fines and penalties against anyone who aides the federal government in getting it implemented within their state.

More work still needs to be done before the correct balance of federalism is restored. As people learn more about Liberty they will insist their states exercise their 10th Amendment rights and hold the federal government accountable. People and state legislatures will need to read and acquire a sound understanding of the Constitution, what it says and why it says it.

Knowing how the Constitution was designed to properly function is vital to the successful 10th Amendment “movement” that Walter Williams was talking about. It should be obvious, to even the most casual observer, that the only way to restore our American federalism, is to know all the inner workings and apply the very principles it was built upon.

Freedom is not free. We, each of us, have an obligation to learn the principles are fore-fathers laid out for us. From there, it is our responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable and force them to abide by those principles. The Constitution cannot protect itself. We the people, MUST, be the ones to do it. If we do not, everything we do to try and get our system back on track will fail in misery.

The present battles, between the states and federal government, to recover federalism throughout the country; goes directly to the principles enshrined within our Constitution. The primary objective of our fore-fathers, when designing the Constitution, was NOT to answer how we run any public policy.

Public policy question and answers were nowhere in their minds. What they set out to do was to define the level where decisions would be made (the vertical plane). They created the Constitution in such a way as to define what they viewed as the federal-state relationships. Exercising the Constitution in any other way was not part of its original design.

In conclusion, it is up to us, we the people, to ensure the 10th Amendment is properly exercised. Failure to do so will ensure the rise of a tyrannical government.

Yours in Liberty

 

Continue Reading 3

Federalism and the 10th: The States’ Great Awakening

By on December 11, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Law, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 9

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 its boundaries.

The Constitution is a great document, but it is nothing more the words on a piece of paper unless those responsible for working within its boundaries are held accountable. The Constitution is absolutely meaningless if the federal government can ignore it and do whatever it wants at any time it wants.

Slowly, of the course of the last century or so, we have witnessed the deterioration of our Constitution. The federal government has stolen power from the states and people on a regular basis. Our rights that are supposed to be guaranteed protection from an encroaching federal government are being dismantled one by one as new laws keep coming out of the federal government.

Members of Congress are vehemently imposing their will upon the states and the people with no regard to the Constitution at all. Perhaps they need to return to school and learn what happened the last time an “imperial” government mandated edicts while ignoring the people. If the federal government continues to treat the states like Britain did the colonies, how could they not expect the “revolution” to happen?

Today we can easily see that our federal government is pushing harder than ever to take on the dominate role in our country’s politics. The servant is attempting to become the master and centralizing power in Washington. The answer to stopping this usurpation lies in the governors and state legislatures. It is within their power to correct this problem.

President Obama and his Administration seem to want to repeat history. They are trying to recreate the New Deal in modern terms. Through the use of Congress, the Fed and the judiciary, they are overstepping their bounds and violating the fiscal and constitutional rights of state and local governments. The imbalance of power in our federalist system has finally reached a tipping point.

When the pain gets large enough, people will do something about it. Apparently, James Madison was correct about the states banding together. While a lot has been taken away, the beginnings of the reclamation process is becoming more evident in our modern times. Several states, although not making compacts with each other, are all moving in the same direction to oppose federal intrusions on their authority.

Perhaps the legal axiom of “silence is acceptance” is being put to use as the states are no longer being silent. That silence has been broken is the first indicator that the pain threshold has been breached. There seems to be a growing movement among the states now to take back the power that is rightfully theirs.  The wheels of insurrection are turning. State and local officials are fighting back. The giant has awakened.

Continue Reading 9

Federalism and the 10th: How It Works

By on December 10, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Government, Law, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 14

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. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 14

VIDEO: A Rousing Defense of the Constitution and Nullification

By on December 7, 2012 in Activism, Constitution, Education, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Liberty, Nullification, State Sovereignty 3

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.

WATCH IT:

“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. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 3

Nothing to Worry About on Indefinite Detention? Guess Again

By on December 3, 2012 in Big Brother, Big Government, Constitution, Nullification, Politicians 12

As mentioned in Friday’s feature article about the Feinstein-Lee Amendment by Tenth Amendment Center Legal Analyst Blake Filippi, it did absolutely nothing to rectify the loss of rights Americans faced from the indefinite detention provisions in the 2012 NDAA that we are working to nullify throughout the country. However, Senator Mike Lee disagrees about the effectiveness of the amendment and is using quite a bizarre rationale to defend it.

Lee released a press release on Friday in an attempt to clarify concerns with the Feinstein-Lee Amendment (http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ID=142f4fe6-3446-4d1a-b82b-df9503db1952). He stated that the 2012 NDAA did not actually authorize indefinite detention of American citizens. If this is the case, then why even pass the amendment in the first place? If the 2012 NDAA was so hunky dory and didn’t authorize indefinite detention of Americans, why propose an amendment to supposedly ensure that Americans wouldn’t be indefinitely detained (which was assumed by everyone to be a response to last year’s Act)?

Lee could not deny that last year’s NDAA would be the ‘Act of Congress’ needed to allow for indefinite detention of Americans. In his press release, he did not quote the provisions of the NDAA which are cause to alarm and we are working to nullify. He omitted this information while assuring us that since a sentence within the Act said that the government would never use the powers that they usurped against citizens that we are supposed to have no fears and feel protected thanks to his work. I’m not buying that the same gang that extra-judicially kills American citizens is going to have restraint in their interpretation of the 2012 NDAA, as Mike Lee apparently does.

Libertarian Republican Congressman Justin Amash agrees with the Tenth Amendment Center interpretation of Lee’s amendment saying, “The Feinstein amendment to the 2013 NDAA does NOT protect you from indefinite detention without charge or trial. In fact, it explicitly permits such detention so long as the detention is approved by an Act of Congress . . . such as the 2012 NDAA.”

This just goes to show you that even people who do a good job of talking the talk might not always walk the walk. Whether he’s simply misguided in an attempt to protect the Constitution for Americans or he’s working to push something he knows will have no effect to quell push-back against federal power grabs, tea party Senator Mike Lee is doing no favors for liberty working with Senator Feinstein and releasing misleading press releases about it. It’s become more obvious than ever that federal bureaucrats aren’t going to protect our liberty, and we’re going to have to work at the state and local level to circumvent the D.C.vers through nullification to protect our sacred rights.

Continue Reading 12

A Tenther’s Guide to the Fiscal Cliff

By on December 1, 2012 in Constitution, Delegated Powers, Economics, Republocrats, Tenthers 5

Watching Republicans and Democrats squabble over the so-called fiscal cliff is like watching a duo of burglars arguing over who keeps your flat screen television. No matter which party prevails, you lose.

Tenthers, as a class, tend to be more pre-occupied with the liberty cliff, whose precipitous incline we fell off long ago. The other various cliffs – fiscal, debt, tax policy, entitlements – are really just the jagged rocks we’ve met on the way down. Which is why Tenthers tend not to wade into the whole fiscal cliff debate. If your causes are liberty, constitutional rule of law and sound currency, then it seems downright silly to sweat the details of how much the federal government should raise the debt ceiling to pay for foreign wars, Obamaphones and highways named after U.S. Senators.

Consider the numbers. The federal government now spends $3,800,000,000,000.00 per year. Various taxes supply about $2,900,000,000,000.00 of that amount. The free ride component – the annual deficit – has now accrued to a staggering $16,000,000,000,000.00 in national debt.

Faced with these appalling details, the Democrats (and Paul Krugman) respond with calls to tax and spend more. Republicans, the supposedly more fiscally continent of the two parties, grumble on about tax increases and then invariably capitulate to more borrowing and spending. And with the deck chairs on the Titanic nicely rearranged, the American people are once again free. By “free” I mean free to watch Dancing with the Stars and Real Housewives of Cleveland while an omnipotent federal government further enslaves us into a highly regulated, pathetically dependent blob of couch potatoes.

So what would a Tenther do? I’m glad you asked!  Here’s 4 steps a Tenther would take: Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 5

Twelfthers?

By on November 21, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Congress, Constitution, Elections 3

It is amazing that during Thanksgiving week, there are still some obsessing publicly over the presidential election earlier this month.  A recent article from World Net Daily details how the Electoral College could be prevented from selecting a president.  To add to a Tenther’s list of reasons to be thankful, let’s include no longer being wrapped up in this nonsense.

Technically, Judson Phillips is correct as he outlines the ways in which the Twelfth Amendment can prevent President Obama from serving another term.  In order for the Electoral Votes to be certified, a quorum of two-thirds of the 50 states must participate in the Electoral College.  If seventeen of the twenty-four states can be persuaded to do this, the Electoral College will not have a quorum and will be unable to renew Obama’s lease at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Phillips calls on readers in what could call dubbed the “Twelfther” movement to contact the Secretaries of State in the states Romney carried and tell them not to participate in the Electoral College in the hopes of denying Democratic states the necessary quorum.

If the Electoral College does not choose a president, the decision constitutionally goes to the Congress, with the Republican-dominated House being likely to choose Romney as president and the enlarged Democrat majority in the Senate reelecting Vice President Joe Biden to his post.  If that happens, what then?

Phillips admits Romney would not be a great president, but he would be better than Obama.  How much better, in terms of results, would a Romney presidency be given the current makeup of Congress?  Let’s explore this. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 3

Texas Moves To Nullify NDAA

By on November 18, 2012 in Big Government, Congress, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Government, Liberty, Military, Nullification 61

House Bill 149 (LS: 83R) – Texas Liberty Preservation Act.

Website: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB149

HB149 is a Bill introduced in the Texas Legislative Process on Nov. 12, 2012, by its author (Rep. Lyle Larson) and currently sits at stage 1 (filed). The design of the Bill is to nullify portions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) implemented by the federal law. Specifically, sections 1021 and 1022 are being made invalid and illegal in the State of Texas. You can read the entire bill here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB00149I.pdf#navpanes=0

Section (1) (b) (1) of the Bill lays out the constitutional groundwork of the findings that prompted the bill in the first place. It notes the limitations of the federal government under the 10th Amendment. It read:

(b) The legislature finds that:
(1) The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorizes the United States federal government to exercise only those powers specifically delegated to it under Article I, Section 8, United States Constitution;

Many people think that whatever the federal government creates as law it is the “supreme law of the land” but that is not true. Often the federal government creates laws that are thrown out because they go beyond the powers delegated to the government in the Constitution. Section (1) (b) (3) of the Bill makes this point eloquently clear. It reads: Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 61

Brief Highlights from United Nations “Agenda 21″

By on July 27, 2012 in Big Brother, Big Government, Constitution, Government, Health Care, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 0

The below sections are taken directly from the United Nations Agenda 21, and represents some of the serious concerns this plan represents to liberty for our people. Please note this overview is intended as a brief introduction, which may interest folks in looking further into the possible ramifications of Governmental Centralization. Please utilize the links at the bottom of the article to explore more of the discussion.

Section 1.1. Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can – in a global partnership for sustainable development.

Section 1.3. Agenda 21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in achieving this. International cooperation should support and supplement such national efforts. In this context, the United Nations system has a key role to play. Other international, regional and subregional organizations are also called upon to contribute to this effort. The broadest public participation and the active involvement of the non-governmental organizations and other groups should also be encouraged.

Section 2.32. All countries should increase their efforts to eradicate mismanagement of public and private affairs, including corruption, taking into account the factors responsible for, and agents involved in, this phenomenon. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 0