Enemy of the State

In a published FOIA request, an Airman stationed in the UK was investigated after a mental breakdown caused by conflicting values of US military’s mission and her own political beliefs. She was found to sympathize with Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Wikileaks. She had admitted to communicating her political ideas with various organizations known for anti-war/anti-military sentiments on Twitter and to a UK journalist. She also attended the Julian Assange Trial. However, her own admission and tweets revealed that she was never asked to release any intelligence to these groups and denied volunteering any intelligence to any journalist or group. The US Airforce Office of Special Investigations filed a complaint report on matters alleging “Communicating with the Enemy.”

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 104: Communicating with the Enemy states:

“Any person who–
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

Who is the enemy in this document? Is it Julian Assange? Wikileaks? Journalists? Bloggers? Social media users? Those opposed to an unconstitutional and failed foreign policy? Anti-war organizations? The leaked document does not directly point to any person or organization but acknowledges who the Airman was in contact with and her activities surrounding her political beliefs. But, constitutionally speaking, who gets to determine the enemy?

The Constitution does not provide any structure to determine an enemy. An enemy could be those the US is at war with. Congress has the power to declare war but there is no framework as to what constitutes a declaration of war. In Federalist Paper number 3, it states, “The just causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence.”

Details

Surprise: Law Professor Misinterprets Supremacy Clause

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.

Details

Pennsylvania Town Working To Nullify Federal Gun Control

With the Obama administration winning a second term and gun control publicly on the national agenda, more and more people are standing up at the state and local levels to protect Constitutional freedoms. This is exactly what is occurring in the small town of Gilberton, Pennsylvania.

Chief of Police Mark Kessler will propose a ’2nd Amendment Preservation’ Ordinance during the January 24, 2013 meeting of city council. According to the text of the ordinance, it will be ‘nullifying all federal, state or local acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States along with section 21 Right to Bear Arms of the Pennsylvania constitution.’

The ordinance continues on with some strong words for the authoritarians in Washington D.C. who wish to trample upon the Constitutional rights of Americans saying, “It shall be the duty of the Governing body of Gilberton Borough and within all of its boundaries within the State of Pennsylvania to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal, state or local acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States along with section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution or any violation of this ordinance.” You can read the rest of the bill by clicking HERE.

Police Chief Kessler says that he intends for this bill to send a message to the Federal Government that the spirit of resistance is alive and well within the American people

Details

Nullify Term Limits?

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.

Details

Federalism and the 10th: How It Works

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

VIDEO: A Rousing Defense of the Constitution and Nullification

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.

Details

Nullifying ObamaCare: An Alternative To The Supreme Court Ruling

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was constitutional.

The Administration takes this as a green light to implement ObamaCare to its fullest extent possible. Because the election went in President Obama’s favor, the Senate and House have lost any desire to overturn the law. Without the overturn, it looks like the law making Obamacare a reality is going to stand forever.

Or is it?

In order to make Obamacare work properly, as it currently stands, there are two mainstays of Obamacare that must be carried out on the state level. Each state must implement an insurance exchange and they must drastically expand Medicare according to the law. These two items of ObamaCare will cost the states untold millions of dollars to implement.

When federal law goes bad, it is up to the states to protect their citizens. The legal theory is called nullification. Nullification is the idea that any given state has the right to invalidate federal laws that they consider unconstitutional. Somewhere along the line the Supreme Court got it wrong in their reasoning. Accordingly, it is like saying that since the government has a stake in GM it can create a law that says we can only buy GM cars. If we buy any other type of car we have to pay an extra tax on it.

Details

Texas Moves To Nullify NDAA

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:

Details

Do the Secessionists Have As Much Courage As the Nullifiers?

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

Hungry for Freedom

It is probably fair to say no President, First Lady, or candidate for said office has ever left a campaign event, state dinner or probably any meal in general saying, “Gee, I wish I’d had more to eat.”  Yet none before the Obamas entered 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have claimed the authority to tell us what they want us to eat, while they eat what they want.  Plenty of kids across these 50 States have probably said that with increasing frequency in response to new federal mandates regarding school lunches.

While our First Lady is able to enjoy her favorite pizza, children in a Kansas school have made a video in protest.  Other students have said the portrayal is accurate, with students claiming they are still hungry throughout the rest of the school day.  There is so much wrong with this situation, it almost encompasses all the problems facing the Tenther movement today.

First, the school administrator interviewed said the solution in the past has been to make adjustments to the school lunches when there were complaints, but the new federal “laws” left him with his hands tied.  A word to that administrator personally, RESIGN!   Your primary responsibility is the well being of the students in your school.  You ought to know better than the people in Congress, the White House and the untold numbers of executive agencies trying to appear significant by churning out new rules.  You should even know better than the nine self-proclaimed demigods on the Supreme Court.  Show some spine and make the adjustments without their permission.  You want input on improving school food?  Go to your community first.

Details