Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin just set an important precedent. By rejecting $54.6 million in federal money to begin implementation of ObamaCare, the governor has firmly set herself against the unconstitutional law and with the citizens of her state. From Fox News: To make it clear Oklahoma will develop its own plan, the state will not accept a $54.6 million…Details
Some guy named Doug Thompson took a cheap shot at Ron Paul recently in an incoherent article titled “The Constitutional hypocrisy of Ron Paul.” From what I could gather, Thompson’s claim is that Ron Paul supports nullification and the 10th Amendment, therefore Ron Paul is a racist because a document published in 1956 called the Southern Manifesto once alluded to nullification.
No mention of the Virginia or Kentucky Resolutions, or of Thomas Jefferson.Details
Before the ink used to draft the new Constitution was even dry, the plot subvert it had already been hatched…Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo introduces you to the the primary conspirators.
Though many living in New England today might be loathe to admit it, there is a long history of nullification being used in the region to defy unconstitutional federal edicts. This week, the town of Sedgwick, Maine voted to carry on that proud tradition by nullifying certain federal agricultural regulations.
They did so through what might be the most legitimate form of democratic expression left in America: the New England town meeting. (Which have been held in the Sedgwick town hall since 1794.)
“Sedgwick citizens…to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing,”
but declares thatDetails
Two state representatives in South Carolina are pushing back against a federal ban of incandescent light bulbs set to begin in January of 2012. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to impose such a ban on the citizens of the several states, and it’s nice that South Carolina noticed. From NetRightDaily: “State Representatives Sandifer and Loftis are taking the lead…Details
Casey’s central argument against what he views as our misreading of the Constitution, betrays both his ignorance of the history surronding the Constitution and the rules of legal interpretation that were understood very well by the those who framed and ratified it.
Both James Madison (the author of the amendment Casey uses to make his case), and Alexander Hamilton, had serious reservations about a Bill of Rights. Why? Because they argued what Tenthers today understand — that the Constitution created a federal government of strictly limited powers. That’s the reason pro-ratification founders, like Hamilton, expressed concern that the Bill of Rights:Details
In an overwhelming 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the odious Westboro Baptist Church and the First Amendment. That is, the amendment which protects ALL speech, not just politically-correct, state-approved speech. Bravo. The nine highest-paid federal judges in the land have proved themselves capable of comprehending the plain language of the Constitution. Why then, we…Details
Dan Casey of the Roanoke Times recently embarrassed himself with a juvenile, ad hominem attack on the Tenth Amendment movement titled “The Whole Tenth Amendment Business is Dumb and Crazy.”
While it’s unclear whether Casey actually expected his “arguments” to be taken seriously, it is clear that he cannot make his point through the use of logic or fact. Therefore, Casey’s piece is chock full of historical inaccuracies, mis-characterizations and outright falsehoods regarding the original intent and meaning of the Constitution.
So many, actually, that I cannot list them all here. However, I did respond point by point in a piece of my own to be published soon.
Here is a sample:Details
If we choose to exercise it, the Tenth Amendment explicitly gives us the power to enforce the Constitution’s letter and spirit through political action, regardless of the opinions and preferences of the ruling class.Details
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer demonstrated some typically muddled progressive reasoning on Fox News Sunday, contending the founders would have supported modern gun control laws and sided with the dissenters in the 2008 case D.C. v. Heller.
In a nutshell, Breyer says the framers (James Madison in particular) put the Second Amendment in the Constitution, but they didn’t really mean it.
He argues that the Second Amendment was included simply to ensure ratification of the Constitution, but that the framers didn’t really philosophically believe in protecting the individual right to bear arms.
He buoys his argument by claiming “most historians” agree.
“If you’re interested in history, and in this one history was important, then I think you do have to pay attention to the story,” Breyer said. “If that was his motive historically, the dissenters were right. And I think more of the historians were with us.”
As if Breyer really has any idea what “most” historians think.
But I digress.
In fact, Madison wrote in Federalist 46 that an armed citizenry provides a check against overreaching government. And any fair reading of the founders reveals a fear of centralized power and that they advocated for an armed citizenry to provide balance and protect liberty.Details