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
Another year, another trip to the Senate Death Star for the Intrastate Commerce Act (HB1438). Without even recording a vote, the elected “representatives” on the Senate Commerce and Labor Sub-Committee #1 left Virginia residents and businesses exposed to the economic and regulatory ravages of every federal agency from the EPA to the FDA to the BATF. When will…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
Two bills written to shield the Kentucky coal industry from overreaching federal regulation passed out of committee Thursday, one in the House, the other in the Senate.
A bill that would exempt Kentucky coal mines and coal alteration facilities that mine or alter coal in Kentucky for exclusive use within the Commonwealth from requirements of the Clean Water Act unanimously passed out of a House committee.
HB421 declares that Congress has no authority to regulate intrastate commerce.
Section 1 of the Constitution of Kentucky recognizes that citizens of the Commonwealth have certain inherent, inalienable rights, including the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberty and the right of pursuing their safety and happiness, which may not be infringed by Acts of Congress that lack constitutional authority.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
In a move that will hopefully be copied nationwide over the next few years, Montana lawmakers are considering forming and training an armed volunteer force of “home guards” certified by the governor and not subject to federal oversight. These home guards would be under the direct authority of the county sherriffs and the governor during any state emergency.
According to the Billings Gazette:
Supporters said the bill is not about arming citizens but to provide additional emergency services as some other states do.
A number of states have a state defense force like a “home guard” for responding to emergencies but few states have an armed force like the bill proposes.
As you might expect, the idea of a sovereign state organizing its citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights has met with considerable shock, outrage and hyperbole from the Left.Details
Introduced in the Texas State House last week was House Bill 145 (HB145), the Firearms Freedom Act. The bill, introduced by Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, states that:
The Legislature of the State of Texas declares that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Texas, as described by Chapter 2003, Business & Commerce Code, as added by this Act, that remains within the borders of Texas:
(1) has not traveled in interstate commerce; and
(2) is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
Since 2009, 8 states have passed similar legislation as law – Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Alaska and Arizona. And, here at the Tenth Amendment Center we expect to see at least a dozen other states consider Firearms Freedom Acts in 2011.Details
Two bills, both attempting to reassert state sovereignty over environmental regulations, will be considered in Virginia’s 2011 legislative session. The first, House bill 1357 (HB1357) addresses the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions specifically, while the second, House Bill 1397 (HB1397) seeks to protect Virginia homeowners from potential cap and trade requirements.Details
The Texas legislature, back in action for the first time since the 2009 legislative session, is getting things rolling in regards to 10th Amendment legislation for the 2011 session. Two resolutions affirming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment were prefiled on the first possible day, 11-08-10.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 (SCR1) was introduced by Senator Glenn Hegar, and House Concurrent Resolution 16 (HCR16) was introduced by Representative Brandon Creighton, whose HCR50 brought the issue and the discussion to the national limelight in 2009.
Both include similar language to assert a proper constitutional role for the state, such as:
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more
RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers
SCR1 takes a stronger position and alludes to a proper next step for the State, including:
RESOLVED, That the power over the freedom of the right to keep and bear arms was reserved to the states, and therefore, all acts of Congress to abridge that right are not law and are void; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed;
Oath Keepers simply recognize that there are certain orders we would NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.Details