Thank you for checking out Tenther Radio – live from the belly of the beast – in Washington DC for one of the biggest political conferences of the year – CPAC.

First of all, we wanted to send out a HUGE thank you to a few of the people who joined the Tenth Amendment Center as members recently – Paul in Arizona, Alain in Illinois, Robert in Nevada, Leslie in Washington and Debbie in New Mexico. THANK YOU – to each of you and everyone else who has joined us as members….welcome to our community!

Tonight, from a hotel room at the Marriott Wardman Park in DC, John Michaels – Tenther Radio producer extraordinaire – and Tenth Amendment Center events director is joined by our good friend, Jason Rink – We’ve got THREE big events happening this weekend in DC…and they give us a little insight on those…

From there, wetake you out to a special report and interview by Robert Scott Bell. He talks to a serious candidate for governor in Utah – Morgan Philpot. Recently Morgan made a bit of a splash when he said he’d stand up to the feds to the point of them having to come and try to arrest him while in office.. Robert has him on the line from Utah.

And also joining us here in DC are Mike Maharrey, TAC national communications director, and Nick Hankoff – youth movement leader, grassroots director, and tenther radio co-host. Nick’s spent the last couple years at CPAC doing outreach and he’ll give us a little insight on what’s in store the next couple days. Mike is doing a ton of media outreach during the event – and has done plenty in advance. They both give us a report on how these efforts are playing out.

“The government people in Washington DC hold the view that they can regulate and virtually control everything and anything that moves. Under the Founders’ Constitutional – instead of the twisted version that these politicians and judges alike have foisted upon us for decades – such view is not just wrong. It’s absurd – and dangerous. No person and no institution can be trusted with that kind of power. ”

MENTIONED IN THE SHOW
Tenth Amendment Center Membership Program
Nullification Movie Screening at CPAC
10th Amendment vs Centralized Power: Jefferson vs Obama event at CPAC
www.robertscottbell.com/
Morgan Philpot

The Tenther Radio Team for this Week
Michael Boldin, Robert Scott Bell, John Michaels, Nick Hankoff, Mike Maharrey, Jason Rink

Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act may allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, but the feds could find they get no cooperation from some state and local officials.

Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) introduced HB1160 which would, “Prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”

Last week, a House subcommittee passed the bill 6-3, moving it closer to a full House vote.

And the Tenth Amendment Center reports that as many as ten states will consider legislation or resolutions in response to the detention provisions in section 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA.

We read today that liberal iconoclast Oliver Stone begins to look to Ron Paul. My kids, reared on Kurt Cobain and Flogging Molly, tend to as well and the Pauls have become big hits on college campus. A new generation is rising to the idea of states rights as a defense against the hovering domination of the federal government.

Lawmakers in Rhode Island and Washington will likely introduce resolutions authored by the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition within the next week, writes Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center. Additionally, local governments, including Fremont County, Colo. and El Paso County, Colo., have passed resolution condemning the detention provisions.

“Federal politicians never seem to repeal federal law. It’s going to take ‘We the People’ in our states to stand up and say, ‘No!’ to this unconstitutional monster,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said.

The Rhode Island Liberty Coalition, “a grass-roots organization dedicated to the preservation of Civil Liberties, Economic Liberties, and the inherent autonomy of the individual” is especially interesting. I’d like to see it expand to The New England Liberty Coalition.

“We drafted nullification legislation that can double as a draft state-wide Act as well as a local ordinance –in any state, county or municipality in the Country — that denounces Section 1021 of the NDAA and prevents local officials from cooperating with military investigations and detainments of United States Citizens and legal resident aliens,” their website states. “The Act goes one step further and attempts to outlaw military investigations and detentions of citizens and resident legal aliens within those states, counties or municipalities. Did we mention this legislation can be used as a template in jurisdictions ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY?”

According to the Post, “Under the ethics rules Congress has written for itself, this is both legal and undisclosed”:

By design, ethics rules governing Congress are intended to preserve the freedom of members to direct federal spending in their districts, a process known as earmarking. Such spending has long been cloaked in secrecy and only in recent years has been subjected to more transparency. Although Congress has imposed numerous conflict-of-interest rules on federal agencies and private businesses, the rules it has set for itself are far more permissive.

Lawmakers are required to certify that they do not have a financial stake in the actions they take. In the cases The Post examined, not one lawmaker mentioned that he or she owned property that was near the earmarked project or had a relative who was employed by the company or institution that received the earmark. The reason: Nothing in congressional rules requires them to do so, and the rules do not address proximity.

With the fox guarding the henhouse, the most one can hope to accomplish is to limit the carnage. Many pundits, politicians, and policy wonks argue that a permanent ban on earmarks would be an effective limit. Unfortunately, that’s just wishful thinking as earmarks are merely a symptom of the real problem: Congress can spend other peoples’ money on virtually anything it wants.

Take the example of Rep. Candace Miller (R-MI):

In Harrison Township, Mich., Rep. Candice S. Miller’s home is on the banks of the Clinton River, about 900 feet downstream of the Bridgeview Bridge. The Republican lawmaker said when she learned local officials were going to replace the aging bridge, she decided to make sure the new one had a bike lane.

“I told the road commission, ‘I am going to try to get an earmark for the bike path,’” Miller said, recalling that she said, “If we don’t put a bike path on there while you guys are reconstructing the bridge, it will never happen.”

A member of the House Transportation Committee, Miller in 2006 was able to secure a $486,000 earmark that helped add a 14-foot-wide bike lane to the new bridge. That lane is a critical link in the many miles of bike paths that Miller has championed over the years. When the bridge had its grand reopening in 2009, Miller walked over from her home.

“People earmark for all kinds of things,” she said. “I’m pretty proud of this; I think I did what my people wanted. Should I have told them, ‘We can never have this bike path complete because I happen to live by one section of it’? They would have thrown me out of office.”

Forget how the federal money made it to Harrison Township, Michigan. As I’ve discussed before, the more important concern is that the federal government is funding countless activities that are not properly its domain:

There just isn’t much difference between the activities funded via earmarking and the activities funded by standard bureaucratic processes. The means are different, but the ends are typically the same: federal taxpayers paying for parochial benefits that are properly the domain of state and local governments, or preferably, the private sector. As a federal taxpayer, I’m no better off if the U.S. Dept. of Transportation decides to fund a bridge in Alaska or if Alaska’s congressional delegation instructs the DOT to fund the bridge.

As a taxpayer, it disgusts me that Rep. Miller steered federal dollars to a project in her district that she personally benefited from. But would I be any better off had the money for a bike path in Harrison Township, Michigan come from a grant awarded by the Department of Transportation?

If Harrison Township wanted a bike path, then it should have been paid for with taxes collected by the appropriate unit of local government. Better yet, a private group could have raised the funds. Either way, I don’t see how it’s possible to argue that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to spend taxpayer money on such activities. Invoking the General Welfare Clause doesn’t pass the laugh test as the bike path obviously doesn’t benefit the rest of the country. The Commerce Clause? Please.

For more on why the federal government should stop subsidizing activities that are properly the domain of the state and local government, see this Cato essay on fiscal federalism.

Earmarks are a Symptom of the Problem is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog

“Null and void from inception” is an accurate way of describing an unconstitutional law inferring it has  no basis or authority within the Constitution for the United States allowing it to be even proposed for debate or voted upon by Congress. The summary text is stating this idea clearly by relaying  ” it is not law and is altogether void and of no force”

Text within the proposal itself specifically declares that Missouri considers Obamacare to be unconstitutional:

The people of the several states have given Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”, but the federal law known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exceeds this power by forcing individual citizens to engage in commerce by purchasing products they may neither want nor need, and also intruding upon the authority each state has reserved to determine how the provision of health care should be regulated within its own borders;

The authoritative wording shows that the State of Missouri is serious in declaring the federal action as overreaching and an encroachment on the powers reserved to the state under the authority of  the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. It illustrates it is being proactive in its efforts to nullify the national healthcare bill, by proposing criminal charges and a means for its citizen to seek damages, by determining liability, to anyone who would seek to

Topeka, KS – On Friday, Feb. 3, 2012, the Kansas Health Care Freedom Amendment passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 6 to 4 vote. Originally introduced in the 2010 legislative session, the proposed constitutional amendment was adopted in 2011 by the Kansas House with a 91-27 vote, and this year, on Friday, the measure was forwarded by the committee to the full Senate for debate. Final passage of a constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds vote from the Kansas Senate. It does not need approval by the governor; instead, it would be placed directly on the November ballot for consideration by the voters.

Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook (R-Shawnee), the chief sponsor of the amendment and who has spearheaded it through the legislative process, praised the committee’s actions.

To track health care freedom act bills from across the U.S., click HERE.

“I would like to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who took their legislative duty seriously to protect the health care liberty of Kansas citizens, and who voted to forward the Health Care Freedom Amendment to the full Senate, giving each senator a chance to be heard on this critical measure. I look forward to the debate and am optimistic we can achieve the required super majority,” she said.

Throughout the three years of debate, Pilcher-Cook has emphasized how critical this measure is for protecting the health care freedom of Kansas citizens from both federal and state government intrusion, and how the proposed amendment would give the Kansas attorney general an additional tool to use in arguments before the United States Supreme Court.

“The current national discussion about health care freedom is a debate in our generation, which we as legislators and citizens must do everything we can to protect present and future liberties, and limit the federal and state governments to their proper constitutional roles,” said Pilcher-Cook. She added, “We must resist every attempt by government at all levels to compel a purchase by an individual simply because they are alive and exist. The people of Kansas deserve an opportunity to have their voices heard on this vital issue of our time.”

Pilcher-Cook also thanked members of the public for their attendance and noted the full committee room may have very well played a factor in the outcome.

“I want to thank the members of the public who, in a driving, cold rainstorm drove to Topeka to witness today’s debate and vote. On such a close vote, there can be little doubt that the packed committee room had an impact on how senators voted. Given the committee chairman would have voted “No” in the case of a 5-5 tie, the voice of the citizenry clearly was vital in earning six votes for the measure. We may not have achieved today’s victory without such deep enthusiastic support, that did not waver or weaken over three years.”

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the federal health care law will be in late March. Pilcher-Cook has pledged to work on getting a date for floor debate as early as possible.

Residential energy efficiency standards. Exempts any residential building or manufactured home in Virginia from being subject to federal legislation relating to residential energy efficiency standards if such building complies with the Statewide Uniform Building Code. Except to the extent required by the Statewide Building Code, the owner of such building or home cannot be required by the federal government to (i) have an energy efficiency analysis conducted on his residence, (ii) have his residence meet federal energy efficiency standards, (iii) participate in a building performance labeling program, (iv) make modifications to the residence in accordance with federal legislation, or (v) post a label showing the energy efficiency of his home prior to its sale. The bill also prohibits any state agency from assisting any federal agency in the implementation of global warming or climate change legislation.

We at the Tenth Amendment Center believe strongly in the wisdom and views of two of Virginias’ most respected statesmen on the duty of the  states under the US Constitution; “and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said  compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”- James Madison, Virginia Resolutions, 1798;”whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force”- Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

This proposed law is an example of the state asserting its right under the Tenth Amendment, telling the EPA it has no jurisdiction over building codes within state borders. Building codes are a local or state issue.

This bill is presently moving through the House and has had second reading, but at the present time, it has been watered down by amendments to remove several sections of the bill protecting manufactured homes and provision blocking any state agency from assisting any federal agency in implementation of EPA regulations. It is time for the citizens of Virginia to contact their legislator at Virginia General Assembly’s Who’s My Legislator? and tell them that you expect them to do their ‘duty’ and restore the bill to its original condition and to pass it as soon as possible.

We at the Tenth Amendment Center hope that you will join us in thanking Delegates Robert G. Marshall and Anne B. Crockett-Stark for their continued support and belief in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment and the Sovereignty of the great Commonwealth of Virginia.

Also, please take a moment and visit the Tenth Amendments Legislative Tracking Page for other model legislation that can be introduced to further curtail the laws and regulations that are outside the powers granted to the federal government by the states.

Some people argue that principles of state sovereignty would be a pointless strategy in their state. They argue that their statehouse is even more corrupt than the Feds and in some cases, they may have a point.

Fortunately there is much that can be done at the county level. Sources are telling Tenth Amendment Center that there are a high number of counties in Colorado alone that are ready to turn back the NDAA.

In recent weeks, the counties of Fremont and El Paso passed resolutions opposing sections 1021 and/or 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act – what some refer to as the “kidnapping provisions” of the act. And this week, Weld County joined them in this stand by passing a unanimous resolution stating its “opposition to the authority affirmed in Section 1021” of the legislation Monday.

“The issue at hand is not a publicity stunt, it’s not politics … It’s the constitution,” Scooter McGee, radio talk show host for 1310 KFKA News Talk, told commissioners Monday before they voted on the issue.

Jeffrey Hare, who is running for House District 48, came to show his support for the resolution as well. “I’ve been following this a long time like Scooter,” Hare said. He said there are already laws on the books that deal with criminal citizens, so there is no reason to introduce something new.

Tisha Casida, who is running for congress in Colorado, spoke with The Tenth Amendment Center and indicated a high level of interest amongst CO counties that she’s been to during her campaign stops.

“Most of the counties I’ve been to recently are talking about nullifying the NDAA,” said Casida. “There’s a ton of talk about the 10th Amendment and laws like the one passed in El Paso County earlier this month are the real deal.”

Harder to tame than a willful statehouse might be a cluster of counties, each one individually nullifying through local law. The claimed power of the Federal Government to incarcerate Americans without trial is not one that is being accepted by many Americans.

Tenth Amendment Center announced new model legislation last week, The Liberty Preservation Act. It would nullify the NDAA and is ready to be introduced in any state. The LPA has all the language needed to turn away the NDAA at your state line. Get all the info at: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/liberty-preservation-act/

Track NDAA nullification across the country here: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/ndaa/

On the heels of the passage of the Tennessee Health Freedom Act last year, Governor Haslam and the Tennessee General Assembly continue their quiet work spearheading the backdoor implementation of Obamacare in Tennessee.

Bills like HB2839 by Rep. Charles Sargent have been introduced into the legislature, designed to build the exchanges required to comply with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. While the bill was withdrawn today from the Tennessee General Assembly due to protest, this is still a sobering reality check with regards to the strength of will and character of our state government (or lack thereof).

In fact, Governor Bill Haslam has even accepted money from the federal government to build the health care exchange.

One of my colleagues in the liberty movement here in Tennessee sent me a copy of an e-mail thread between him and one of our Republican state legislators who casts himself as a proponent of liberty in regards to the exchanges. The legislator states:

Currently the state has received funds so as to begin the process of implementing a state run health insurance exchange. This does not commit TN to implementing the program.

Regarding the health insurance exchange, the states must either implement an exchange that is answerable to, and run by, Tennessee. If Tennessee does not implement this the the [sic] feds will come into our state and set this up for us. The feds will run this program and it will not answer to Tennessee or our citizens. [Name removed], your thoughts on this decision are welcomed, but it seem [sic] logical to me that TN should set this up not the feds.

So, let’s translate this e-mail into elementary school playground vernacular, shall we?

Feddy, the Playground Bully: Hey dogmeat, you better give me all your lunch money, every day, forever and ever, or else.

Little Billy Legislator: Well, I don’t agree that you have the power to take my lunch money. So instead I am going to protest by setting up and administering a brand new bureaucracy whereby my lunch money will be distributed to you on a daily basis. That way I am in control, not you.

Feddy, the Playground Bully: Whatever dogmeat. As long as I get my money I don’t care what you call it. But if I don’t get my money, I will beat you to a pulp. (Walks away)

Little Billy Legislator: (under his breath) Ha ha, I just stuck it to him didn’t I?

Our “fearless” Little Billy Legislator isn’t doing so hot, is he?

He’s patting himself on the back for standing up to the bully by … shocker … doing exactly what the bully wanted.

Unfortunately our real legislators here in Tennessee seem quite content to do the same. They are quite happy to puff out their chests and claim that they’ve stood up to the federal behemoth by doing exactly what the government wanted.

Some logic, huh?

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and the author of the Virginia Resolution of 1798, had a different take on the role of the state legislature with regards to dealing with the federal playground bully.

“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.” – James Madison, Virginia Resolution of 1798

It is clear from James Madison’s statements that the Tennessee General Assembly and Governor Haslam have both the power and the duty to nullify the unconstitutional acts of the federal government and arrest the progress of these acts by refusing to comply. Quite simply, they must interpose themselves between the federal government and Tennesseans and do what any self respecting 2-year-old would do and say, “NO!”

Our legislators took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and it’s high time they started taking it seriously – starting with Obamacare. It is becoming clear that they are moving forward with the implementation of Obamacare, and that the vast majority of our legislators and our governor do not have the intestinal fortitude of a 2-year-old, much less the guts to uphold their sworn oath of office.

So what can we do?

We the people of Tennessee must demand that our state legislators and our governor take a REAL stand against the evil being forced on us by the federal playground bully. There is no more time or room for games. Enough is enough. If they refuse to uphold their oath of office and do what is right, then we need to work incredibly hard to make sure that they are not re-elected to office.

It is time for the Tennessee General Assembly to take a cue from Nancy Reagan, wife of revered Republican icon President Ronald Reagan – not to mention every 2-year-old who has ever walked the face of the earth – and “Just Say No!”

Article 1 Section 10 of our Constitution gains momentum as a “go to” clause for states to assert their right to protect their citizens from the debasement of the Federal Reserve’s national currency.  The reason is easy to understand for anyone who can use a calculator.  Our nation is broke.  It will never repay its debt with dollars that carry the same purchasing power as today’s already debased currency, and a greater number of Americans are on to the game of wealth confiscation through inflation.

The wisdom of our Founding Fathers stands the test of time, even if we as a nation do crazy things like ignore their counsel for – oh, say – a hundred years.  State by state, a stand is being made.  Economic prosperity, freedom, and protection are at the end of the gold and silver rainbow.  If your state has introduced sound money legislation (currently Idaho, Washington and soon to be South Carolina and Missouri), please call your representatives and ask them to support it.

CLICK HERE – to track the status of Constitutional Tender legislation across the country.