Archive | History RSS feed for this section

Understanding The 10th Amendment

By jim kearney on April 26, 2013 in Big Government, Commentary, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, History, Liberty, Nullification, State Sovereignty, Tenthers

The “winners” write the history, and always in favor of their side of the “argument”.

Government’s job is to “control” the people. Control takes power and power comes at a price: the people’s liberty. In a nutshell, government power stands as the enemy of liberty. And when it comes to the war between power and liberty, power generally triumphs.

Government wins.

And government writes our history.

Most people allow the government to educate their children and that means they learn the approved government version of history. Sadly, it is totally corrupt. Few Americans realize it and can’t, or wont, correct the mistake.

I will try to help correct a piece of the disinformation surrounding the 10th Amendment and put it all into the correct perspective for you.

We’ve watched government trample on the Constitution throughout most of our recent history. We do not have to look very far to see examples. President Bush’s Administration created the The Patriot Act, anything but patriotic. Throughout his terms in office, Bush completely disregarded what the Constitution said and wielded the arms of war with wanton disregard.

President Obama continues in the same vein with more anti-constitutional measures. When Congress does not do what Obama wants he creates Executive Orders with the force of law. Effectively legislating from the White House and overstepping his constitutional boundaries without any regard to the laws our country.

Our Constitution is a document designed to LIMIT the power of the federal government. It enumerates the exact duties, responsibilities and powers of each branch of the federal government. In other words, the federal government ONLY has the powers over things that are specifically spelled out in the Constitution. ALL OTHER POWERS are reserved for the states and people. This is succinctly spelled out in the 10th Amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Continue Reading →

Comments { 5 }

Bill Proposed To Keep Federal Hands Off Alabama-Produced Firearms

By Shane Trejo on January 28, 2013 in Activism, Constitution, Education, Firearms Freedom Act, Government, History, Liberty, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers

There has been a growing number of states recently looking to pass laws that nullify overreaching federal intrusions on Second Amendment rights with Alabama being one of the latest states looking to protect the natural rights of its citizens.

Alabama Senate Bill 43 is called the ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ and it intends to ‘exempt from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within the borders of Alabama.’ It was introduced on Jan. 11 and will be read and referred to the State Senate committee on Judiciary Feb. 5.

Although this bill does not go after all possible federal restrictions on guns within Alabama, it is definitely another step in the right direction toward building resistance at the state level to malevolent power grabs from Washington D.C. The text of the bill begins specifically with an explanation of the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution as the foundation for this peace of legislation.

“The guaranty of [Tenth Amendment] powers is a matter of contract between the state of Alabama and its people and the United States as of the time that compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Alabama and the United States in 1819,” the bill states.

The bill continues on to cite its own State Constitution as grounds for its legitimacy and necessity saying, “Section 26 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, secures to Alabama citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of an individual Alabama citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state.”

In addition to safeguarding the Bill of Rights, the bill also contains a nice TAC-approved history lesson with references to the compact theory of the Union endorsed by Thomas Jefferson. The people of Alabama apparently don’t interpret the Constitution as giving the federal government absolute power to run roughshod over their freedoms.

Senate Bill 43 was co-sponsored by State Senators Allen, Fielding, Smith, Waggoner and Ward.

LEGISLATION AND TRACKING

If you would like to see model legislation to introduce in your state to nullify federal firearm laws, please see The Tenth Amendment Center’s Model Legislation: The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act.

Track the status of Firearms Freedom Acts in states around the country HERE

ACTION ITEMS

For more information on contacting your State Senator to urge their support of this bill if you are a resident of Alabama, click HERE.

Comments { 14 }

We shouldn’t need to ask

By Steve Palmer on January 28, 2013 in History

Facts: Pennsylvania’s 1780 Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery predated the Constitution by 7 years. It predated Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation by 83 years and it predated the 13th amendment by 85 years.

Pennsylvania’s emancipation act also preceded the end of slavery by more than 230 years (and counting) in the handful of countries where slavery is still practiced today. Continue Reading →

Comments { 6 }

No Budget, No Freedom

By Steve Palmer on November 26, 2012 in Economics, Founding Principles, History, Taxation

Jonathan Mayhew, via wikimedia commons.

There are rallying cries from the American revolutionary period which are still axiomatic in American Society. One was apparently coined by Jonathan Mayhew in a 1750 sermon, “Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-resistance to the Higher Powers“. It is, “No taxation without representation.” Similarly, James Otis is often credited with the phrase, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” It is claimed that Otis used this phrase in his legal argument against the Writs of Assistance.

These phrases are unquestionably correct in a free society, but what is it that makes them true? What are the characteristics of taxation without representation that make it tyrannical — and how do these principles apply to today’s American society?

Continue Reading →

Comments { 8 }

Do the Secessionists Have As Much Courage As the Nullifiers?

By Benjamin W. Mankowski, Sr. 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 }

To Intervene or Not to Intervene?

By Bernie LaForest on July 20, 2012 in Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federalism, Founding Principles, History, Liberty

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. Continue Reading →

Comments { 0 }

18th Century Meanings of Happiness and Liberty

By Steve Palmer on January 23, 2012 in History

Cross Posted from the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.

In this Glenn Beck interview,

http://youtu.be/mZ-2sjaLsCI

Rick Santorum tells us that the 18th century definition of happiness is, “to do the morally right thing”. When I heard this, I was surprised and fascinated, but also suspicious, so I decided to see if I could confirm that. First, I checked the Dictionary of the English language by Samuel Johnson (1768, 3rd edition), where I found this… Continue Reading →

Comments { 2 }

Wall of Separation: Myth?

By Joshua Lyons on January 19, 2012 in Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federalism, Founding Principles, History, Originalism

The topic of “Separation of Church and State” is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the political sphere. I’m setting out in this brief commentary to provide some context on the topic, along with the position of a Constitutionalist.

Some facts:

The phrase is not contained in the Constitution (although the average person may think it is).
The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Roger Williams (of the Danbury Baptists), where Jefferson was borrowing “a wall of Separation” which were words used by Rev. Williams.
The purpose and context of the letter was to assure the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would not establish a single denomination of Christianity as the national denomination.
The phrase/letter was not about divorcing “church and state” as it is understood or referred to today.

The biggest misunderstanding is not even the concept of the “Separation of Church and State” itself, but a misunderstanding of:

federalism
the construction of the US Constitution
the first 10 Amendments (i.e. the Bill of Rights)

The US Constitution documented the powers/authority delegated to the newly formed federal government (i.e. what the federal government could do). The Bill of Rights documented specifically what the federal government was not allowed to do (i.e. power/authority it didn’t have). Continue Reading →

Comments { 2 }

Nationalism, Federalism and the Civil War

By Michael Boldin on September 15, 2010 in History, Nullification

I often read blogs, articles, news “reports” and the like – where the commentator refers to the current 10th Amendment Movement with a comment like Hugh Holub in the Tucson Citizen:

“The Civil War was about the right of states to allow slavery. The Union won and slavery was outlawed.”

Obviously, the southern states wanted slavery, but in reading the original “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union” – one would find the ideas of nullification and states rights vs centralization to be the leading issue:

an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. [Emphasis Added]

Or how about Mississippi:

“[the North] has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.”

From this it seems quite obvious to me that the Civil War WAS about nullification and states rights – the northern states were utilizing them and the slavers in the South wanted central power to force their way on the whole country.

Totally opposite of how the mainstream mouthpieces would have us believe.

Comments { 4 }