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…Details
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…Details
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.Details
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.”Details
I frequently hear people talk about how many “constitutional rights” we have lost under (fill in whichever President’s name). This brings up a very interesting misunderstanding about the origin of our rights… For one thing, our rights don’t come from the Constitution; the Constitution merely recognizes that our rights preexist it.
For instance, in the 2nd Amendment it goes like this:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
It says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” ..not “the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms” – this is a very important difference in syntax! This is true throughout the document, and the document even recognizes in the 9th Amendment that we have all the rights not specifically mentioned.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
If the Constitution gave rights, then the syntax of the 9th would say something like “that the people shall enjoy” or “that the people shall have” instead of “retained by the people.”
The meaning of the subtle difference here is profound, and has vast implications!Details
Turkey has a fighter plane shot down by a Syrian missile defense battery. Do you think that they will respond with military force? Do you wonder if anyone in our central government said that they wished it was one of our F4 Phantoms that was fired upon?
Syria, much like Libya before it, is in a civil war. There is a large group of people tired of the oppression of their ruling government and they are killing each other.
We had a President once who thought he knew better and went to war to prevent a bunch of states from withdrawing from the union of states that they had previously sought to join as members.
No country decided who was right and who was wrong and sent troops over here to fight on a side; did they? Is it our place to decide who is right and who is wrong in Libya, or Syria?
Let us say our country arrives at a point where we find ourselves in a civil war.
Say the people of a number of states tire of the tyranny of the central government. They refuse to be threatened with indefinite detention without trial or evidence.
They refuse to live with drones able to conduct 24 hour surveillance without any warrant. No more will they submit to bodily searches by uniformed thugs before they travel or having their mail, phone calls and Internet activities monitored.
A number of states decide that they cannot realistically expect their citizens to be able to pay their state, property and sales taxes needed to maintain the state as well as pay federal taxes for the central govt. to fund programs that support the schooling, food, housing and utility assistance of those who pay no taxes.Details
Last Monday, Texas Governor Rick Perry sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius stating that Texas will not participate with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, also referred to as Obamacare). He states that Texas will not implement the health benefit exchange or expand Medicaid
In his letter, he made the following statement:
Neither a “state” exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid under the Orwellian-named PPACA would result in a better “patient protection” or in more “affordable care.” What they would do is make Texas a mere appendage of the federal government when it comes to healthcare.
During an interview with Fox News, Perry also stated the following:
I can assure you that Texas and other states would find more effective, efficient ways to deliver healthcare to their citizens and do it in a way that preserves those individual freedoms.
During the same interview, when asked about the high number of Texas Residents without insurance even with a strong economy in Texas, Perry responded:
The idea that this federal government, which doesn’t like Texas to begin with – to pick and choose and come up with some data that says somehow Texas has the worst healthcare system in the world is just fake and false on its face,” he said. “Every Texan has healthcare in this state, from the standpoint of being able to have access to healthcare – every Texan has that. How we pay for it, and how we deliver it, should be our decision – not some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. that may have never been to Texas a day in their life.
Perry joins a list of eighteen other governors vowing stopping the implementation of the PPACA. Among this list are Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Florida Gov. Rick Scot and Democrat Governor from New Hampshire, John Lynch.Details
Cross posted from the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.
There is a point that I think I’ve been trying to get to for much of the time that I’ve been working with the Tenth Amendment Center. Unfortunately, I don’t think I’ve done a very good job at getting there. I’ve written a few articles that skirted past it and danced around it, but I kept missing this particular target. It’s something that we probably all know, but maybe we don’t all know that we know it.
I got close to this idea it in The Individual and the Tenth, where I talked about the role of the individual in resisting the federal government during the “Whiskey Rebellion”. Apparently, though, I didn’t really have things clear enough in my own mind at the time, because I only got part way there. It came closer to the surface some time last year, when I drew up this diagram, intended to depict the proper Constitutional balance of power.Details
With a quip typical of a main stream media talking head, Scott Keyes traversed some well worn turf in the article entitled “Strict Constitutionalist’ Ron Paul Endorses Nullification As A ‘Very Good’ Idea”. In the post, Keyes attempts to justify federal legislative oversteps by referring to any act of congress as “the supreme law of the land” and thus, are good to go. He makes no distinction in this assertion for the sovereigns of the state, or the individual.
It’s sad really…
As the Constitution lays out the framework for our great republic, the first ten amendments guarantee that the government cannot encroach on, or take away our freedom and liberty.
Our natural rights.
You might recall those. We have been losing a lot of them lately.
He comes to this conclusion by referring to the test of the Constitution which “states clearly that acts of Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”
Keyes interpretation of the constitutional passage show no regard for the Ninth or Tenth Amendments.Details
The mood of New Hampshire’s legislature concerning an overstepping federal government is clearly illustrated in NH HB1650. In no uncertain terms, the representatives of the people of New Hampshire have made clear their thoughts on the role of the United States Government, declaring that Uncle Sam is bounded by the U.S. Constitution, and that when it decides to step outside these limits, it is unlawful and of no effect. The bill has provisions which would make it a criminal act for its violation:
I. Any public servant of the state of New Hampshire as defined by RSA 640:2 that enforces or attempts to enforce a federal act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation upon a foodstuff labeled “Made in New Hampshire,” that is produced commercially or privately in New Hampshire, and that remains within the state of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.