Archive | Federalism RSS feed for this section

On the internet tax

By on May 8, 2013 in Federalism, Taxation, Uncategorized

There are a few problems with the internet tax bill that passed in the US Senate this week.

First, how can the Senate give “permission” to the states to tax internet sales when it doesn’t own or have a controlling interest in the internet in the first place? I can’t give my friend permission to cut down a tree on my neighbor’s lawn or to collect tolls on a public road and split them with me.

Secondly, why do the states need “permission” from the federal government to tax internet sales? Since regulation of the internet and control of state sales taxes are not powers that were delegated to the federal government by the states and the people in the Constitution, no enumerated power exists over these matters at the federal level, and this issue is already under the purview of the states (as per the 10th Amendment).

Thirdly, large corporations such as Walmart, Target, and Amazon are supporting the internet tax because they know they will be able to absorb the additional cost of doing business, while their small-business competitors will not.

Lastly, state governments who are complicit in this effort to squeeze the middle-class even further with tax increases should be instead focusing on reducing spending to get their budgets under control, rather than using usurped federal taxation “power” to bludgeon us into submission.

We would be better protected under true “federalism” where this tax debate would be taking place on a state-by-state basis, rather than a body of 535 deciding what is best for 300+ million people.

Comments { 5 }

Do you believe in self-rule?

By on April 2, 2013 in Big Government, Federalism, Founding Principles, Liberty, Republocrats, State Sovereignty

Do you believe in self-rule?  Can people determine for themselves how to live and what kind of governmental system that they will live under?

Sure you do!

Right?

But are you sure?

Please, consider the following questions:

Should the federal government be involved in regulating marijuana?

Should the federal government be involved in regulating other drugs?

Should the federal government establish a central bank?

Should the federal government declare anyone an enemy combatant without due process?

Should the federal government regulate marriage: gay or straight?

Should the federal government take either the Pro-Choice or Pro-Life stance on abortions?

Should the federal government regulate guns?

Should the federal government interfere in the health care market?

Should the federal government interfere in education?

If you answered “Yes,” to any of these questions, then on some level you don’t believe in the concept of self-rule.  Therefore, you are imposing your values or morals on others who might not share them. Continue Reading →

Comments { 8 }

To Protect the Second Amendment, Pennsylvanians Rediscover the Tenth

By on February 23, 2013 in Constitution, Federalism, Firearms Freedom Act, Nullification, State Sovereignty

After the flurry of new legislation introduced in the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2013, gun owners should consider sprucing up their spring wardrobes with Tenth Amendment t-shirts and hats.

In mid-January, State Representative Daryl Metcalfe proposed the Right to Bear Arms Protection Act (HB 357) which nullifies all federal firearms laws adopted after December 31, 2012. HB 357, which provides criminal penalties for attempted enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws in Pennsylvania, amassed 67 co-sponsors in the last month.

Following closely on the heels of HB 357, State Representative Matt Gabler introduced the Firearms Freedom Act (HB 475) which prevents any federal regulation of firearms and ammunition manufactured and sold within Pennsylvania’s borders. Citing the 9th and 10th amendments as valid consideration for Pennsylvania entering in the union compact in 1787, HB 475 draws a line in the sand against federal laws that are offensive to intrastate commerce and Pennsylvania and federal constitutional guarantees of gun rights. HB 475 garnered 49 cosponsors in the last three weeks.

Despite the popularity of both pending nullification bills, several Republican and Democratic state legislators have refused to join as cosponsors, invariably citing the Supremacy Clause for the proposition that federal laws are supreme and only federal courts can say otherwise. Continue Reading →

Comments { 5 }

Surprise: Law Professor Misinterprets Supremacy Clause

By on January 26, 2013 in Commentary, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Education, Federalism, Founding Principles, Government, Law, Nullification, State Sovereignty

Have you ever read an article that you were not sure what stance the author takes on the subject but presents both sides of the argument at once? I had the distinguished experience recently when I was reading the article titled “Sheriffs, State Lawmakers Push Back on Gun Control” on the Newsmax website (see: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gun-Control-Pushback/2013/01/17/id/471825). It was a little confusing until I got about half way through it and read a quote by Sam Kamin.

Sam is a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. One would think that if someone was a law professor that they would actually know and understand the law. Or in this case, a constitutional law professor – who should then know and understand the constitution. It is highly unfortunate when people like Sam misspeak about a subject. Their title gives them some credibility so people think what they say is true because they are supposedly an “expert”. But, when they make a mistake it is still a mistake.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Clause 2 reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sam makes the comment that state legislatures can pass any laws they want but that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes such actions unconstitutional. He further states that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme. Nothing could be farther from the truth. His blanket statement implies that the state laws are not necessary and state governments are not necessary because the federal government and its laws are supreme. Continue Reading →

Comments { 20 }

Left and Right Agree to Disagree

By on January 2, 2013 in Federalism

After an embittered presidential election, a never-ending kabuki on Washington finances, and now a fierce debate over property rights, many would be surprised to know that members from opposite sides of the political spectrum have found some common ground. Betsy Woodruf at National Review Online sure was. She was shocked to find agreement between the Republican Governor of Illinois, Mitch Daniels, and Tom Dickenson of Rolling Stone magazine regarding medical marijuana and federalism. Both, it seems, favor letting the states determine their own drug policy, even though they may not agree on what each state ultimately decides.

First, note that agreement between the two parties happens more often than not. In principle they all agree on war, debt, entitlements, taxation, police statism, drones, the central bank, socialistic healthcare, prohibition, and many other issues. Of course they disagree on just how much debt there should be; if the military ought to bomb the people of third-world countries or drop bombs and machine-gun them; and whether individuals should forfeit 35 percent of their income or only 33 percent. Some diversity of thought.

But what’s noteworthy about this particular case is that each can agree because neither is trying to force the other into submitting to a single policy. Here we see one of the great things about decentralized government: it tends to reduce conflict by allowing various groups to “live and let live.” This is isn’t possible when all policy decisions are made by one body, when a polity becomes too big. Continue Reading →

Comments { 18 }

Nullify Term Limits?

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

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 →

Comments { 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

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

 

Comments { 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

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.

Comments { 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

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 →

Comments { 14 }

Do the Secessionists Have As Much Courage As the Nullifiers?

By on November 13, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Commentary, Delegated Powers, Elections, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Health Care, History, Nullification, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers

By now, anybody who even casually follows the Tenther movement and the liberty movement in general has likely heard about the secession petitions circulating.  Yesterday, I had personally gone from only hearing about Louisiana, to hearing my State of New Jersey had one too, to hearing the count was up to twenty States.  That could be an old number by the time this makes it into the Tenth Amendment Center blog.

The language of these petitions is interesting, as they “ask” the federal government to let said States peaceably withdraw from the United States.  Although I confess to having signed, originally for Louisiana upon first finding out, and then for New Jersey, it was more out of curiosity than anything else.

Apparently, any State circulating these petitions requires a minimum of 25,000 signatures within thirty days in order to receive a White House response.  Texas has nearly double the required signatures, and Louisiana is likely a day away from hitting the threshold.  Several states are beyond halfway there.  Check to see if your State is on the list.  While you’re at it, go ahead and sign, so you can get your response.  The most likely response from the White House is a familiar word to anybody in the nullification movement, “No.” Continue Reading →

Comments { 9 }