In the West, ownership and control is a big battle between state and local governments. Alaska Lt Governor Mead Treadwell recently calls for State SovereigntyDetails
Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura has a list of demands, and over 10,000 people have signed his petition at Change.org.
Ventura and his supporters had better be careful what they wish for and how they go about trying to make it happen, though. They may just end up destroying whatever “Democracy” they’ve set out to “regain.”
The federal elected officials, to whom the petition is addressed, must face the threat of some grand electoral overthrow if they don’t vote and act correctly this time! And how must they vote and act exactly? No, not in accordance to the US Constitution! But instead directed by the whims and wishes of the body and the mind of Jesse Ventura.
Ventura opens the letter withDetails
We might be losing another good man to the federal beast.
South Carolina state Senator Lee Bright has decided to primary Lindsey Graham next year in an attempt to throw the notorious liberty hater out of government once and for all.
Certainly, Bright would be an improvement over his predecessor, assuming he can unseat the incumbent. Sen. Lindsey Graham is perhaps the biggest enemy of the Bill of Rights in the Senate. Even in the Congressional cesspool, he stands out as especially verminous. Bright would represent the people of South Carolina better than Graham ever could, and he’s off to a good start calling Graham a ‘community organizer for the Muslim brotherhood’ in one of his first interviews as a candidate. Superficially, there is a lot here for a liberty activist to like.
But upon closer review, Bright is making a mistake. Liberty is not going to be reclaimed by winning a federal election. If he pulls off the upset and wins, Bright will join a small handful of senators who talk tough against big government. Like Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, he can raise a big stink and draw attention to the corruption going on within the federal government, but he will likely be very ineffectual in restoring our constitutional rights. Conversely, staying put as a state senator, he could actually be effective in reclaiming liberty for South Carolinians by nullifying federal laws.Details
The folks at the conservative legal blog Judicial Watch are hopping mad that the Obama Administration and their buddies at the ACLU are waving the white flag of surrender in the drug war.
According to a Jun 10 blog post titled ‘DOJ Takes ACLU’s Lead on Pot Shops; Ignore the Law‘ which looks like it may have been written in bizarro world.
“The fact remains that federal law prohibits [marijuana] and therefore it’s a slap in the face to law and order that these illicit enterprises are surfacing around the country, especially in the area surrounding the U.S. government. A national news report points out that two new pot businesses will operate in the shadow of Congress and will mark one of the boldest moves yet for the nation’s marijuana movement.”
This possibility, however contrived, horrifies the ‘law and order’ conservatives over at Judicial Watch. So much so that they are willing to trample the Constitution to continue their “war” on a plant. The so-called “War on Drugs” rests on the same constitutional authority as most of the other American wars over the last 70 years.
Question me? Consider this: why did the federal government need a constitutional amendment to fight its war on alcohol?
The Constitution delegates no power to the federal government to prohibit marijuana.Details
Some sentences are so contradictory, so self-evidently oxymoronic that they stop you in your tracks. For example, maybe you have a friend who says something like, “I’m a vegetarian, but I really love cheeseburgers.” Hearing this, you’re likely to give your friend a bewildered look and say, “Dude…huh?”
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, the reported response of some Utah politicians elicited a similar reaction. As reported by The Universe, “Prominent Utah Republicans overwhelmingly applauded the Supreme Court for recognizing same-sex marriage as a states’ rights issue but expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court is not in harmony with the Congressional majority that favors DOMA.”
How can it be simultaneously acknowledged that regulation of marriage is a state issue and bemoaned that a federal law that nationalized the issue was struck down? What can account for such an obvious contradiction? As always, the devil is in the details It is enlightening to understand which Utah Republicans acknowledged this issue as the domain of the states and which didn’t.Details
Former Republican Presidential Candidate and promoter of the “9-9-9″ economic plan Herman Cain recently wrote an article to rebut the claim that Republicans don’t have an answer to our nation’s health care “crisis”. The article champions HR 2300 – Empowering Patients First – as “vastly superior to the train wreck we’re facing right now” with Obamacare.
Mr. Cain ends his article with an interesting combination of irony and hypocrisy by quoting James Madison, commonly referred to as the Father of the Constitution, and labeling Obamacare – but not HR2300 – as “government malfeasance”.
Now I’ll agree with Mr. Cain that Obamacare is terrible legislation as well as government malfeasance. The assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” interferes with the right of the People of the States to regulate health care as they see fit, and makes a mockery of James Madison’s assurance in Federalist #45 that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”
I’ll also even entertain the unlikely possibility that HR 2300, introduced by Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Price, may be less terrible than Obamacare. Rep. Price is a doctor, after all.
However I have a few questions for Mr. Cain:Details
A Yahoo News article released recently reads: Rand Paul’s Troubling Ties to Racists. The article uses the terms “Pro-confederate”, “neo-confederate” and touches on the Civil War. The source used in the Yahoo News article is from The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative online news source, which published an article slandering Paul as a radical because his aide (Jack Hunter) has long been a supporter and advocate of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment reads: 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.
In layman’s terms, if it is not one of the powers delegated to the federal government by the US Constitution then the federal government has no business exercising power of such matters. In modern America where the federal government controls what kind of shower you can use, the type of light bulb you are allowed to light your house with and what kind of milk you decide to pour over your cereal in the morning it is no surprise that nullification is becoming a household word again.
Paul is the first modern US Senator to use the term “nullification” in support of reining in the powers of the federal government when it comes to unconstitutional federal legislation. He first used this when President Obama attempted to issue executive orders on gun control.Details
Last week we received a few heckles for posting a Facebook meme of George Bush signing the Patriot Act. We stand by our intent – Republicans and Democrats, George Bush and Barack Obama – are sell-outs and equally culpable for the security-surveillance industrial complex of whose scary details were leaked to the press last week.
If you are the sporting type and keeping score, the Democrat-Republican Party is beating the Constitution by six touchdowns going into the fourth quarter. These dudes are on the same team, even if it took you half the game to figure it out. Behind the inexorable expansion of the state, the Right and the Left often stand as one.
Take, for instance, Rich Galen, a neo-con who blogs at Townhall.com, writing today about NSA-whistle blower Edward Snowden:
As a taxpayer, I’m not paying you to look out after my Fourth Amendment rights. I’m paying you to do whatever job you were hired to do, and if you find that job too ethically distasteful, then you should quit.
But keep your mouth shut.
Galen suggests a long federal prison sentence would be just deserts for Snowden for exposing a creepy, out-of-control national government sifting warrantlessly through our personal emails and internet searches. After all, Galen declares, he is a 66-year-old guy with nothing to hide.Details
Ever since food became easier and more profitable to create by machinery the government has tried to regulate it in some sort of fashion. The first English regulation of such was the Assize of Bread and Ale around the year 1266. In America the first endeavour into regulating food came in 1862 when President Lincoln launched the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Chemistry. These two organizations operated in what today we call the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the Agriculture Department. Later on in 1906 the Pure Food and Drugs Act was passed and what we now call the Food and Drug Administration was formed. Through these early regulatory adoptions it was aimed to raise the standards in food and their truthfulness in packaging. The nutrition labels that we all now know were mandated in 1990 through the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) and amended by the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA) of 2004.
But how far do we go in demanding how manufacturers produce and label their food? Specifically speaking, how far can we go on a federal level? On a state level? Already, we have numerous states with specific laws for food that is imported or exported from that state above and beyond the federal requirements.
This raises a question: should we rely on one-size-fits-all mandates from D.C.? Or would we be better served allowing states to determines the extent of their food labeling?
Considering the way big agribusiness manipulates the federal system, we might want to consider a more decentralized approach.
On March 26th President Obama signed HR 933 – called the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 – into law to stop the shutdown of the American government. Buried in this bill, we find the Farmer Assurance Provision – aka the “Monsanto Protection Act.” Lawmakers sneaked in Section 735 giving special privileges to companies that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMO), even allowing them to continue producing crops even if a court finds them harmful – which very well may not entirely be the case. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) said that he will introduce legislation in the Farm Bill of 2013 to repeal the Monsanto Protection Act.Details