After passing the House, the bill made it onto the Senate calender this week. However, yesterday it was sent back to committee.  Because the bill is not revenue neutral, a “fiscal letter” was requested.  The bill’s handler, Senator Chuck Pergason plans to vote the revised bill out of committee at 8:30 Wednesday morning.

With just over 72 hours left in the 2012 session, we need every person in Missouri who understands what sound money means for the cause of liberty to call Senate leadership and firmly but respectfully request that they move HB1637 to the floor for debate and a final vote before the session ends!

TAKE ACTION NOW

Urgent action is needed.  Please call and email Senate leadership, in particular Senators Tom Dempsey and Robert Mayer. 

CLICK HERE – to get contact information for your Missouri Senator

We have come far! We cannot stop until this bill is on the Governor’s desk!  This nation needs momentum toward constitutional tender to continue to build, and Missouri seems to be our best opportunity in 2012.

The Arizona governor failed to protect the basic due process rights of the citizens who put her in office. She failed to interpose on behalf of the people she serves and shield them from the specter of federal kidnapping. And she failed to stand up for the U.S. Constitution.

Gov. Brewer vetoed SB1182 on Monday. The bill passed by overwhelming majorities in both the Arizona House and Senate and would have prohibited state compliance with detention without due process provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Act.

In her veto letter, Brewer asserted that the law would put Arizona law enforcement officers between a rock and a hard place.

While I unequivocally support the due process rights of all United States citizens, I cannot support legislation that forces law enforcement – under the threat of criminal penalty – to choose between upholding the constitution and laws of the United States, and abiding by the laws of Arizona.

SB1182 sponsor Sen. Sylvia Allen (R-Snowflake) said Brewer sets up a false dichotomy.

“The governor shows more concern for a non-existent dilemma of law enforcement officers than for the Constitutional rights of Arizona citizens, which are negated and taken away by NDAA under the color of federal authority,” she said. “And she contradicts herself. She says that law enforcement would have to choose between upholding the Constitution and the laws of the United States, or upholding the laws of Arizona.  Excuse me, but SB1182 was all about upholding the Constitution. Signing SB1182 would have been an act in favor of upholding the Constitution. Vetoing it says that our law enforcement officers don’t have to uphold the Constitution – they can just go right ahead and enforce the National Defense Authorization Act, which deprives citizens of their constitutional rights.”

Tenth Amendment Center research analyst and Arizona resident Derek Sheriff said he doesn’t think Brewer really understand the constitutional Supremacy Clause.

“An unconstitutional act like the NDAA is in reality no law at all. There’s no conflict between a peace officer’s duty to support and defend the Constitution, and his refusal to participate in any way with the implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012,” he said.

And Allen points out that every state official, including state law enforcement officers and the governor, swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

“When Congress comes along with an unconstitutional act like the NDAA that overlooks due process protections, for example, then our state elected officials should honor their oath and say,  ‘No thank you,’ to the federal government.”

James Madison asserted that” in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact (the Constitution), 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.”

Brewer failed in her duty.

ACTION ITEM

If you live in Arizona, contact Gov. Brewer and express your disappointment in the veto of  SB1182 and her failure to protect the due process rights of her citizens.

You can find contact information for the governor’s office HERE.

The Resolution further asserts:
Whereas, the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, states:

“The Privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it;” and Whereas, the North Carolina Declaration of Rights, Article I, Section 21, Inquiry into restraints on liberty, states:

General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2011 Page 2 2011-LG-149 [v.7] (02/09)
“Every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the restraint if unlawful, and that remedy shall not be denied or delayed. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended;” and

Whereas, there has been no suspension of habeas corpus by Congress, purporting to authorize detention without grand jury indictment for such time as Congress has specified during a “rebellion,” or an “invasion;” and

Whereas, instead of suspending habeas corpus, Congress has unconstitutionally authorized indefinite military detention, under the “law of war,” of persons, including United States citizens and lawful resident aliens, a power nowhere granted to government within the United States Constitution;…”

The Resolution further goes on to detail the violations of the U.S. Constitution and the subsequent Amendments, listing the 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 8^th and 14^th in particular, and the corresponding violations of the Constitution of North Carolina.

We at the North Carolina Tenth Amendment Center believe that the provisions written into sections1021 and 1022 of the NDAA 2012 are a clear and present danger to rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country and this state, and the adoption of this resolution would place this state alongside Virginia and Arizona in opposition to this unconstitutional “law”. These Provisions in the NDAA are a willful and dangerous expansion of federal power in direct violation to the U.S. and North Carolina Constitutions, and we applaud the Legislature for taking up the cause liberty.

In conclusion, the Resolution affirms:
“SECTION 2. The House of Representatives expresses its sense that all provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which are unconstitutional, including as noted herein above, were and are null and void from their inception and are not enforceable in this state, and it is the express policy of state’s Legislature that no officer, employee, or agent of the state will implement, enforce or otherwise support, directly or indirectly, any of the above noted unconstitutional provisions, and that a violation of such policy will be deemed a violation of their oath of office and employment agreement, and will subject them to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

SECTION 3. The House of Representatives recognizes its duty to interpose itself between unconstitutional usurpations by the federal government or its agents and the people of this state, as well as the duty to defend the unalienable natural rights of the people, all of which is consistent with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and with our oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Please join the Tenth Amendment Center in supporting this Resolution by following the Action Items below.

To see the TAC Tenth Amendment Commission model legislation page, click HERE.

Visit the TAC’s legislative tracking page for NDAA legislation HERE

ACTION ITEMS

If you live in North Carolina – act NOW. Not tomorrow or next week. Today, not tomorrow – right now.

1. Visit the links below for contact information for your State Legislator:
How to contact your State Representative:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=House

How to contact your State Senator:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=Senate

2. Click on your Legislator’s name and get their email address and TWO phone numbers – capitol and district offices.

3. CALL them. Best option – respectfully, yet firmly urge them to pass this Resolution and the corresponding Bill. Let them know that you want them to stand up for the Constitution of the United States AND the Constitution of North Carolina – they took an oath to both.

4. EMAIL them – even if you call, you can still email too. Or just send them a firm but courteous email urging them to vote yes on this Resolution and Bill.

5. Report Back – when you get responses, let us know! We want people to be informed of what their delegates are saying and doing.

There has been a great deal of commentary on Governor Christie’s veto of A2171, but the Governor provided an explanation of his actions on his page. I give credit to the governor for his diplomacy when he refers to the “significant public debate and discourse” that occurred during the federal government’s passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. Congress went out of their way to suppress debate on the bill and rush it through, complete with hastily scribbled hand corrections. As Nancy Pelosi put it, we had to pass it before we found out what was in it…but I digress.

While Tenthers, and anyone else concerned about the Constitution, are justified in applauding the governor’s veto, we should also remain vigilant. Nowhere in the governor’s explanation did he say that the individual mandate, or further federal expansion into health care, or federal involvement in health care to begin with, was unconstitutional. He did not say he would veto a reintroduced, modified version of the New Jersey Health Benefit Exchange Act if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the PPACA constitutional later this year, which is a possibility.

Contact Governor Christie if you have not done so already. Thank him for his veto of A2171, and urge him to veto any and all further legislation that would surrender our state sovereignty, whether on matters of health care or anything else. In addition, contact your state legislators if you believe our health care, and much more specifically our health insurance system, needs reform. That is where the debate should have been in the first place. Let them know you’ll be watching them to see what they do, and that they won’t be able to pass a 2,000 page bill on us like Congress did. Remind them that they represent and are accountable to you, not Washington, D.C.

I thought I would give a shot at a point by point refutation.

HERITAGE:  “Nullification Is Unconstitutional”  The Nullification Temptation: In order to challenge the federal government’s unconstitutional actions, states are looking for options to reassert their legitimate role in the constitutional structure of federalism. Unfortunately, despite good intentions, some have been tempted to embrace nullification—the claim that an individual state legislature has the authority to veto federal laws.

RESPONSE:  That is not strictly so, I will lay out what we at the Tenth Amendment Center consider to be “nullification”. If it did mean (literally) ” that an individual state legislature has the authority to veto federal laws,”  then I suppose I would agree that nullification was a bad idea and illegal. That is not, however, and never has been, what nullification is. The most assertive version of nullification is a state law that makes enforcement of an unconstitutional federal act illegal within the state, and sets penalties for any official who attempts to do so.  A veto, by comparison, would literally make the law null and void in every state in the union, and even make it cease to exist.  Such a view would be empowering one state to rule the country.  See the difference?

HERITAGE: Supreme Law of the Land: At the center of our system of government is the United States Constitution: All federal and state officers and judges are bound by oath to support it and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land—not the Supreme Court, the federal government, or an individual state legislature, for that matter.

RESPONSE: Excellent point, the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land. That means that any law that is in violation of the Constitution is not the “supreme law of the land” (in fact, it is no law at all). Moreover, any state law that is passed to nullify an unconstitutional law is more in “pursuance of” the Constitution than an unconstitutional federal one! In short, laws passed NOT in pursuance of the Constitution are not supreme to state laws that are in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution.

HERITAGE: Nullification Is Unconstitutional: The constitutional case against Obamacare can be made in detail and in general. State legislatures can do many things to object to, challenge, and seek the repeal of such federal laws. But there is no clause or implied power in either the national or the various state constitutions that enables states to veto federal laws unilaterally.

RESPONSE: Absolutely false.  It is true that there is no power of nullification stated in the U.S Constitution.  It is not delegated to the Federal government. It is not specifically forbidden to the federal government.  It is not delegated to the states. It is not forbidden to the states…

Wait a minute, the 10th amendment says ”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.” So by the very facts I cited by virtue of the fact that it is not mentioned in the affirmative, or the negative within the Constitution, it is ”reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. In short, the 10th amendment is the clause that Heritage says does not exist…

HERITAGE: The Founders Rejected Nullification Nullification Is Bad History: Advocates of nullification often point to Madison and Jefferson’s drafting of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798—which protested the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts—as proof that the Founders advocated nullification. This is incorrect and misleading.

James Madison: Madison’s Virginia Resolutions did not speak of nullification or voiding laws, asserting that the resolutions did not “annul the acts” but were only “a legislative declaration of opinion on a constitutional point.” During the Nullification Crisis of 1832, Madison strongly denied John C. Calhoun’s theory of state nullification.

RESPONSE: As far as the Virginia resolution, we don’t have to guess what Madisons intentions where, we can check the report of 1799 where Madison Justified the Virginia resolution with among other things this gem ”It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal, superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the. parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

While it may be true that Madison objected during the “nullification crisis,” you must look at what was being nullified, the 1832 nullification crisis was about tariffs, which are an enumerated power in the constitution. Calhoun said they where being applied unfairly to the detriment to the primarily export economy of the antebellum south, and the unfair advantage of the manufacturing north.  Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.  Nobody who seeks to nullify Obamacare, or the federal war on drugs or any of the other litany of nullifications that have been pursued recently is seeking to check Constitutional powers such as taxation. We are trying to check massive usurpations of the plain spirit of the Constitution where the feds are not only doing what was never intended, and is clearly not permitted, but what is clearly forbidden as well!

HERITAGE:  Thomas Jefferson: While Jefferson referred to nullification in the draft of the first Kentucky Resolutions (by which he meant a natural right to revolution outside the constitutional structure), the final language excluded the term and called on other states to join “in requesting their repeal at the next session of Congress.” The 1799 version affirmed that the resolutions did not supersede federal law but were rather a “solemn protest” against the objectionable legislation.

RESPONSE: From Jefferson’s draft of the Kentucky resolution (Kentucky) “…does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact (U.S. Constitution), is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits…” So where Jefferson says every state has a natural right to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of powers within their limits, I think he was talking about the plain sense of the words. Now it is true that the nullification in Virginia, and Kentucky where never tested (the Democratic Republicans came to power shortly thereafter and they repealed the Alien and Sedition laws, but the state of Virginia was the most powerful state in 1798, and it is pretty sure that those laws would have been unenforcable within the state bounds of those states.

While Rep. Breckenridge did remove the nullification language from the draft presented to the Kentucky legislature, the resolution retained the assertion that the Alien and Sedition Acts were “void and of no force,” effectively declaring them null. And the follow-up resolution passed by the Kentucky legislature in 1799 did include the nullification language.

HERITAGE:  Madison’s Alternative: In the Virginia Resolutions, Madison asserted the power of states “to interpose for arresting the progress of evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.” This meant various state actions designed to arouse public opposition, challenge federal actions, and ultimately change or stop the objectionable action. Recent state Health Care Freedom Acts, not to mention subsequent legal challenges and pending elections, are good examples of state action challenging Obamacare.

The Constitutional Way to Change Laws: Rejecting nullification as an option does not mean that the states or the people have no recourse. The Constitution itself lays out the best path to change unconstitutional laws: object to the law and change opinions (and political leadership) in the political process, defund and slow its implementation, change or repeal the law, challenge it in the courts, and, if necessary, amend the Constitution.

RESPONSE: Here we have it, according to Heritage, you cannot fight D.C. except by using the fixed federal system. That is to elect new bums to betray us, to pass amendments, and hope the feds follow the slightly longer Constitution (which they ignore right now), to sue the Federal government, in the federal courts, and hope that the federal judges, who are appointed by the federal President, confirmed by the federal Senate, and paid out of the Federal treasury will side against themselves, and with the states… No thanks, I will stick with the clearly Constitutional path of nullification

A single Democrat voting to axe a government program would have been a shock. But congressional Republicans regularly extol the virtues of limited government and free markets. As Rep. Pompeo said in astatement, “If those who talk constantly about rolling back the unsustainable size and scope of the federal government are serious, then they will support my efforts to eliminate the EDA.” Well, 104 Republicans voted to continue spending taxpayer dollars on warmed-over subsidy program that’s been hanging around since the 1960s.

Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD), for example, voted against the Pompeo amendment. But in a column she penned in April, Noem said “Our debt crisis is a result of Washington spending money it doesn’t have and letting our children and grandchildren pick up the tab.” Noem favors a Balance Budget Amendment and says that “Our government must come together and make the tough decisions to secure our nation’s prosperous future.” Really? Noem says tough decisions need to be made but she can’t even get behind the elimination of the EDA. Talk about chutzpah.

Noem and 85 other Republicans also voted against Rep. Ben Quayle’s (R-AZ) amendment that would have defunded a new corporate welfare program asked for by President Obama in his fiscal 2013 budget proposal. Thanks to the 86 Republicans in the House, instead of terminating programs, taxpayers will get a new one called the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program.

Negativity aside, Representatives Pompeo and Quayle deserve kudos for actually trying to kill a federal program. Even though their efforts failed this time, they could bear fruit in the future if more members decide that they’d rather not take another vote exposing them to be complete hypocrites.

Republicans Help Save the Economic Development Administration is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog

In the pre-dawn hours on Thursday, by a vote of 56-5, the House Armed Services Committee passed a slate of changes to the NDAA for the next fiscal year. Committee Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.) released a statement announcing the goals of the bill’s latest mark-up:

I am proud of the bi-partisan way the Committee has worked together to build this bill. It rebuilds a force strained by ten years of war while restoring both fiscal and strategic sanity to the defense budget. It keeps faith with our troops and their families while keeping America ready to face the threats of the future.

In his statement, Representative McKeon declares that “every American must have his day in court.” Further, he “reaffirms the fundamental right to Habeas Corpus of any person detained in the United States pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.”

Section 1033 of the mark-up version passed by the committee is offered as the codification of that protection. Here is the current text of that updated provision:

This section would state that nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40).

The double-speak contained in that paragraph is impressive even for a Capitol Hill lawyer.

Read it very closely: The new bill does nothing to prevent the indefinite detention of Americans under the 2013 NDAA; furthermore, it only reiterates that habeas corpus is a right in courts established under Article III of the Constitution. That such a right exists in the courts of the United States has never been the issue. The concern of millions of Americans from every band in the political spectrum is that Americans detained as “belligerents” under the terms of the NDAA will not be tried in Article III courts, but will be subject to military tribunals such as the one currently considering the case of the so-called “Gitmo Five.” There is not a single syllable of the 2013 NDAA that passed out of the House Armed Service Committee on Thursday that will guarantee Americans will be tried in a constitutional court and not a military commission.

Curiously, furthermore, McKeon’s mark-up ties the fundamental right of habeas corpus not to the Constitution (or the nearly 900 years of Anglo-American law), but to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force where the protection of that right is severely diminished. Such sleight of hand should not go unnoticed, particularly when it is performed by one who flies under the “Republican” banner.

On the subject of partisanship, it is almost axiomatic that Republicans and Democrats do not agree and that “reaching across the aisle” is an unattainable goal. While such conflict is not only anticipated but is encouraged in the government established by the Constitution, the frighteningly indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA seem to be an area where bipartisanship is becoming more common.

Prior to the Armed Services Committee’s hammering out of the new NDAA, Representative Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking member of that committee, announced that he will propose an amendment to the 2013 NDAA that would explicitly forbid the indefinite detention within the United States and repeal the provision of law from this year’s version that permits the transfer of some suspected of terrorism into the custody of the military.

Currently, the Smith Amendment (officially styled the “Due Process and Military Detention Amendments Act”) has 60 sponsors from both major political parties. Given the noble aim of the Smith proposal, all constitutionalists should be de facto co-sponsors of the bill, as well.

The purpose of the measure, as set forth in the text, is:

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 to provide for the trial of covered persons detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force and to repeal the requirement for military custody.

Smith’s bill accomplishes this goal in two steps: First, it repeals the infamous Section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA. Section 1022 is the provision that empowers the President to order the military to take custody of certain “covered persons” (those branded by the President as threats to national security); next, the Due Process and Military Detention Amendments Act would revise Section 1021 of the existing act (the section authorizing the indefinite detention of American citizens classified as “belligerents”) by amending the current language to read:

Disposition of Covered Persons Detained in the United States — In the case of a covered person who is detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, disposition under the law of war shall only mean the transfer of the person for trial and proceedings by a court established under Article III of the Constitution of the United States or by an appropriate State court. Such trial and proceedings shall have all the due process as provided for under the Constitution of the United States.

While the broad strokes of the NDAA are by now likely familiar to readers, a brief overview is in order.

Most of what is contained in the over-500-page 2012 version of the NDAA is inimical to liberty. For example, under the provisions of the aforementioned Section 1021, the President is afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States.

In order to execute this immense power, the NDAA unlawfully grants the President the absolute and unquestionable authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States to apprehend and to indefinitely detain those suspected of threatening the security of the “homeland.” In the language of this legislation, these people are called “covered persons.”

Regardless of promises to the contrary, the language of the NDAA places every citizen of the United States within the universe of potential “covered persons.” Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a “belligerent” and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.

The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 will now soon come before the full body of the House of Representatives for a vote. No doubt the deliberations will feature speeches decrying the revocation of habeas corpus and the legalization of the indefinite detention of Americans in military prisons based on nothing more than presidential suspicion.

So as to prevent these denouncements from being nothing more than sound and fury signifying nothing, Americans must be actively engaged in the fight to prevent such precedents from being set. We must remember that these deviations from the strait and narrow constitutional path have placed our Republic on a trajectory toward tyranny.

I have a few lost causes to add to that neverending prayer list: my state of Iowa’s elected officials in Washington. (Most of Iowa’s own state legislators and senators are another story, for another time.) What prompted my recent dismay was a short article that appeared in my local paper. This news note stated that Senator Charles Grassley was “…glad the Obama Administration came to its senses.” Ol’ Chuck’s gladness was in reference to the Labor Department’s decision to withdraw its regulations that would have placed strict restrictions on teenage and younger people working on family farms.

Now, you would think that I would be glad that Chuck was glad. Well, maybe I would have been a few years ago, but not now. Blame the Tenth Amendment Center for that. Anyway, piqued by Chuck’s response on this issue, I searched the Web site of the other Iowa Senator, Tom (too good for Iowa) Harkin, and heard…crickets chirping.

Surely my Congressman, Bruce Braley, must have something to say on this issue. Nope. More cricket action. I couldn’t believe it. You’d think that he and Tom would be glad–just like Chuck–since they represent a lot of farmers.

I don’t know about Tom and Bruce, but it’s highly unlikely that they tote around a copy of the Constitution like I’ve heard Chuck does. Good for them! They would be even bigger hypocrites if they did. Back to Chuck. Being a “constitutionalist,” he should not be “glad” that the Department of Labor withdrew its young working farmer regulation. Why? Because his gladness is pathetic. He sounds like he’s grabbing his master’s hands and kissing them, happy that his master has acquiesced to something that Chuck feels strongly about.

What Chuck and all his federal bretheren should actually be doing is actively shutting down the DOL (defunding works) as well as the other alphabet soup of unconstitutional departments and agencies. I won’t give them a list. All they need do is consult the Constitution–specifically Article 1, Section 8–and start striking out the interlopers.

Since I’m not going to hold my breath that my elected federal representatives will actually honor their oaths to the Constitution, I’ll just keep concentrating on my state’s elected officials to push back against a bloated, power-mad federal government. There’s hope at the state level as evidenced by victories against the fed in other states.

One can continue to pray for lost causes–especially the trio I’ve mentioned–but there are 50 causes that aren’t lost. They, and the power they wield, have been rediscovered thanks largely to the Tenth Amendment Center.

Possibly much like it is today.

Most of my neighbors got here migrating downward from Quebec during the industrial period. But a surprising number migrating north to what is today Canada during the American Revolution, then heading back to work a hundred years later. Consider what Hitler might have felt when he drove his troops into Paris on June 14, 1940. Americans held still for two years against their French allies in the Revolution. Why would they bother to defend their natural enemy, England? But aid we did, and we culturally rebonded with England via the invasion of France with both our armies.

In the end, we were naturally closer to England than we were to France. So suppose they had just worked out the tax thing together in 1776? Both the Revolution and World Wars I and II on England’s behalf could have been avoided. A diminished post-Victorian British Empire must have seemed an easy target and the Germany navy smelled blood in the water as early as the Queen’s Jubilee in 1897 when Victoria was in her last years. But would the Kaiser and Hitler have dared to challenge a realm as vast as a unified Anglosphere?

Here in New England, taxes went up after the Revolution, although the farmers were promised they would go down. And are taxes worth fighting for anyway? Had all the English-speaking realms together banned slavery as England did by the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 the American Civil War would have been avoided.

I couldn’t help notice yesterday that Australia’s economy is booming. It is the first major economy since the start of the financial crisis to record a surplus. One of my sons works there and another heads to England next year to study. They feel quite at home there as they do here. Increasingly, with a little help from The Beatles, Chef Gordon Ramsey, journalist like Stuart Varney, actors like the great Daniel Day-Lewis, it appears that things would have naturally occurred this way in time had not the Revolution broken us apart, and required two horrendous world wars to bring us back together. Back to where we appear to have been heading in the first place.

The Raymond P. Shafer Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act would allow qualified patients in Pennsylvania to legally use marijuana for medicinal purposes. It would also allow patients to possess up to six marijuana plants and one ounce of usable cannabis. But for nearly a year, House Bill 1653 has languished in the Pennsylvania House Human Services Committee.

Keeping the bill bottled up in committee works just fine for Rep. John Lawrence (R – Franklin). In fact, he says he would rather not deal with the issue at all.

“I’m not a supporter of the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. This is an issue that should be dealt with at the federal level,” he told the Chester County Daily Local News.

“Ooh, that potato’s hot! You take it!”

Of course, the federal government possesses no constitutional authority to “deal with” medical marijuana. The issue falls under the numerous “objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.” Pennsylvania lawmakers have a duty to decide whether the Keystone State will join 15 other states legalizing medicinal cannabis, or if the potential negatives outweigh the possible benefits for patients.

But Lawrence doesn’t want to do his job.

I may disagree with his position, but I can’t fault Lawrence for opposing the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. He has a rational reason.

“Look what happened in California where you have a tremendous increase in marijuana usage and it’s not going toward the folks the law intended it for,” he said.

Debatable. But at least he has a reason to oppose the bill. So oppose it Rep. Lawrence. Just do your job and vote against it. Convince your fellow legislators to oppose it with you. But don’t sluff off your duties and responsibilities on the feds.

Of course, the federal government has no problem taking Lawrence up on his offer. It already claims the authority to regulate medical marijuana in every state. In fact, the 15 states currently running medicinal cannabis programs defy federal government each and every day, expressing the will of the people in those states.

But our friend Lawrence would prefer some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. or a Senator from Alaska to speak for his constituents.

When you think about it, Lawrence’s position raises an interesting question: why does he even have a job? Why even bother with a state legislature in Pennsylvania? Why not “deal with” every issue at the federal level? Lawrence can’t cite any kind of constitutional separation of powers between the state and the federal governments to defend his job, because he makes it clear he’s perfectly happy allowing the feds to “deal with” at least one issue it has no authority to meddle with. He apparently has no problem letting somebody else do his job for him.

Perhaps the good people of Pennsylvania should demand Rep. Lawrence return his paycheck to taxpayers.

ACTION ITEM

If you live in Pennsylvania and support legalizing medicinal marijuana, contact the members of the House Human Services committee and ask them to move House Bill 1653 out of committee. You can find their contact information HERE.

Also contact your own representative and senator and ask them to support the bill. You can find your legislator contact information HERE.

To track state marijuana legislation across the U.S., click HERE.