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
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.
“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
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
The below sections are taken directly from the United Nations Agenda 21, and represents some of the serious concerns this plan represents to liberty for our people. Please note this overview is intended as a brief introduction, which may interest folks in looking further into the possible ramifications of Governmental Centralization. Please utilize the links at the bottom of the article to explore more of the discussion.
Section 1.1. Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can – in a global partnership for sustainable development.
Section 1.3. Agenda 21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in achieving this. International cooperation should support and supplement such national efforts. In this context, the United Nations system has a key role to play. Other international, regional and subregional organizations are also called upon to contribute to this effort. The broadest public participation and the active involvement of the non-governmental organizations and other groups should also be encouraged.
Section 2.32. All countries should increase their efforts to eradicate mismanagement of public and private affairs, including corruption, taking into account the factors responsible for, and agents involved in, this phenomenon.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
According to the West Chester Patch, two Tenth Amendment legislative items are on the House calendar in Pennsylvania this week.
First, the House State Government Committee will take up SB10, “A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, providing for health care services“, in a hearing beginning at 9am tomorrow. This legislation proposes an amendment to our state Constitution which prohibits:
- laws requiring an individual to purchase health insurance;
- penalties for direct payment for health care services; and
- penalties, taxes, assessments or fees for failure to purchase health insurance.
Writing as if he were James Madison, Pete Spiliakos, in his recent article James Madison Keeps It Real On Nullification, (an excellent article I urge you to read) made an interesting argument stating that nullification and interposition were not legal. But before we get to that, let’s look at the rest of his article where he states as Madison that, “Now I’d say that nullification and interposition are two different things. The first is the alleged legal rights of states to suspend the enforcement of any law a state government feels to be unconstitutional within the borders of that state. The second is the power of the state government to protect their citizens from radical violations of their rights by the federal government. I know they sound similar, but they could hardly be more different.”
This is where he goes on to explain the difference between the two concepts. But when you break it down, it is the difference between turning your back and saying I am not going to do that and getting in the bullies face and saying I’m not going to do that and neither are you!
At the Tenth Amendment Center, we have a Model Legislation tab at the top of the page. We offer model legislative bills on different Tenth Amendment issues, and with some there are as many as three different versions.
First, there is a Resolution, which states what Tenth Amendment issue you are raising, and then asks that the federal government stop doing it, a lot like a First Amendment redress of grievances. Second, Nullification, where the Tenth Amendment issue is stated and you refuse to comply and forbid any state officer from aiding or complying with the federal government. Kind of the state version of civil disobedience. And finally comes Interposition, this one restates Nullification but not only will state officials not comply they will physically block federal officials from enforcing the “law” in the state. That’s were things get a little dicey. This is the last option no state wants to be pushed to, but when all else fails they must be willing to push back.Details
At statehood, the federal government promised all states that it would transfer title for all public lands within the states. The U.S. Supreme Court has called these promises “solemn compacts,” “bilateral (two-way) agreements,” and “solemn trusts” that must be performed “in a timely fashion.”
With the vote of 35-15, SB1332 was changed from requiring that Washington turn over “public lands” to a demand that they do so. If it passes the Senate, it will place Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in the position that Utah Gov. Gary Herbert found himself in when he signed similar legislation last month, do they join the Western land war: 5 states fight D.C. for control of federal areas.
The fight centers on the millions of acres of lands that were never turned over to the western states after they were admitted to the union. These lands are being held in “trust” for the “public” but they hold valuable resources that the states feel they have a right too. The following list shows what these states see as unequal treatment by the federal government. The percentage of land that is under the control of the feds west of the Mississippi is staggering and they want it turned over as promised in the Enabling Acts that brought these states into existence .Details
Currently, 16 states have laws allowing medicinal marijuana usage, and with Connecticut House Bill 5389 passing through the Connecticut House by a 96-51 affirmative vote, there may soon be a 17th. The purpose of this bill is to legalize “palliative marijuana.” The bill states in Section 1.2.B that “any medical condition, medical treatment or disease…Details