On page 73 of Nullification, Thomas E. Woods, Jr., provides an 1811 quote from the Pennsylvania legislature. The quote comes from State Documents on Federal Relations, edited by Herman V. Ames. That, in turn, contains the 1811 Pennsylvania Resolutions Against the Bank. In the preamble to those resolutions, our legislature wrote, The people of the…Details
November 2nd is set to be an important day for the future of Arizona and America. Not only will we vote for fresh faces who will vow to “get tough” in Washington, D.C., but states across the country are considering ballot measures that will pull the Tenth Amendment out of the closet for some serious stretching such…Details
Interesting post over at Mother Jones, to say the least – and the principle definitely makes sense. Here’s an excerpt: Rachel’s case for secession wouldn’t find much common ground with Rick Perry, though; to her, breaking away would only be the mildly humorous first step. All 50 states should break apart, and then keep on…Details
Kentucky Rep, Stan Lee (R – Lexington) has prefiled a Joint Resolution for the 2011 regular session reaffirming Kentucky’s sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The resolution, BR 55, “…serves as notice and demands to the federal government…to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”
Lee said that the federal government needs do what it was intended to do and state government needs to do what it was intended to do.
“The health care debacle and failed stimulus bill are but two examples of the federal government’s attempt to cast a long shadow over Kentucky and our people, “ Lee said. “This joint resolution serves as a reminder to those who seek to make our federal government an eight-headed monster that we will no longer stand by and see our sovereign rights taken away.”
Lee introduced a similar resolution in the 2010 regular session, but it failed to pass.Details
It is written in the constitution that states may decide how electors
are selected for the president of the United States. This is the main
provision in the constitution that decides how electors are to be
chosen. Most states have chosen to use direct popular vote within
their own states and the result is that we think that states can’t
alter how it chooses electors. This is false because the democratic
choice of electors was granted to the people of each state by the
state legislators so it is reasonable to conclude that the same
legislatures can place additional burdens on the electors.
The state of Arizona has a bill that will not allow its electors
released until the president can verify that he matches the
requirements to be president of the United States. Once this bill is
enacted into law then the current president or any president for that
matter will have to prove to the state of Arizona that the president
meets the constitutional requirements to be president.
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, in 1787, James Madison wrote, “The Senate will represent the Staes in their political capacity, the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capacity”. This is why the Congress in 1913 should have kept their hands off the Constitution. Not only did they give us the Federal Reserve, and the 16th Amendment, but they gave us the 17th Amendmemt too. That is what makes the Madison quote above so important.
We, the people, already have representation in Congress. That is why we have the House of Representatives, to represent the people. That’s why bigger states have more congressman. Representation is based on population because the House is where the people are represented. The Senate has equal representation because that is where the States are represented and States deserve an equal voice (though I guess some would disagree!).
The U.S. Senate was never intended to he a “mini-House of Representatives”. There is a reason the State legislatures were to appoint Senators. The Founders even had the idea that Senators would be well respected citizens with different business backrounds and areas of expertise. Why was the progressive Congress of 1913 so hell bent on undoing everything that had worked so well for so long?Details
On Thursday, February 18, 2010, historian and author Tom Woods spoke on “When All Else Fails: Nullification and State Resistance to Federal Tyranny” as part of Campaign for Liberty’s activities at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Tom Woods will be the keynote speaker at the launch of the Nullify Now! tour in Ft…Details
Texas vs. EPA update: At this moment, the State of Texas is clashing with the EPA over the EPA’s arbitrary and unconstitutional changes to the Clean Air Act. (The EPA seems to have forgotten that Congress, not a department of the executive branch, writes our laws.) The whole story is here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/25/texas-fights-global-warming-power-grab/?page=1 Texas Attorney General…Details
Two Kentucky candidates recently made Tenth Amendment friendly statements.
While Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate Jack Conway continued to press the issue of rampant drug problems in Eastern Kentucky, saying his Republican opponent doesn’t get it and vocally advocating for federal funds, Rand Paul stuck to his guns, reiterating that he opposes federal funding for drug enforcement and addiction programs.
Paul insists the best way to deal with problems comes through innovating local solutions, adding that Washington siphoning money out of the state makes that more difficult.
“Right now we send money to Washington that comes back to us after it circulates through the Washington bureaucracy. Maybe if we weren’t sending so much to Washington, we’d have more in Kentucky,” Paul said.
Paul’s stand has apparently cost him some points in the polls. But Paul is right. And even if those dollars create some benefit when Washington deems it fit to bless the Commonwealth with a little windfall, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to fund drug programs.Details