SCOTUS and the EPA vs Private Property

On March 21, TAC reported that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of an Idaho couple who had been petitioning the court system to be allowed to make their case concerning EPA administrative heavy handedness. The post, U.S. Supreme Court: Idaho Couple can take EPA to Court, reported that the couple had been directed by the Environmental Protection Agency to restore their newly acquired home construction plot back to its original state or face stiff fines. The EPA would not allow an appeal, or even a hearing.

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the main powers delegated to the federal government, specifically those of the Legislative Branch. An original understanding makes it clear that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to form a federal agency which can dictate what people can do with their private property. Just as it has no authority to demand the American people purchase something, Washington D.C. has no power to tell us what to do with personal or real property we own.

Utah, Colorado, Nevada and many other western states are neighbored by separate “federal states” which cannot be utilized for their own taxing purposes or to access the natural resources that reside within them. This is due to the fact that the federal government had either grabbed up the land when the state first entered the union, or had purchased it by some means. Regardless of how it was acquired, the federal land is within the state, and the people of that state cannot utilize it, in most cases.

Federal ownership of the land creates no benefit to the state itself. As U.S. Government Property, it is considered a resource of the U.S. Federal Government. In some instances, such as the Smoky Mountains in North Carolina, the area has been deemed A UNESCO World Heritage Site and is “legally protected pursuant to the Law of War, under the Geneva Convention, its Articles, Protocols and Customs, together with other treaties including the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and international law”. Our Congress had to ratify that UN treaty. “While each World Heritage Site remains part of the legal territory of the state wherein the site is located, UNESCO considers it in the interest of the international community to preserve each site”.

How is that for giving away Sovereignty?

Details

ACTION ALERT: Help Maryland Nullify the TSA

Un-consented contact means a contact that a person does not want, or contact that was informed as wanted to avoid. This is exactly what Maryland’s House Bill 1111 is proposing to make a crime. The legislation could substantially curb the federally mandated Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) blatant violations of American’s civil rights. We urge you to contact the individual leaders of the House Judiciary Committee and express your support for this bill, and the protection of our Constitutional rights.

The Maryland State Legislature proposes in the bill titled “Public Safety – Restrictions on Searches for Security Purposes – Penalties”, to define illegal detention,  search, and seizure by a public servant as a crime against the victim of the encroachment, and authorizes the State Attorney General to make use of existing laws and the Tenth Amendment as a defense against any federally levied claims against its constitutionality:

Synopsis:

Prohibiting a specified public servant, while acting under color of the public servant’s office or employment, from intentionally subjecting another person to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that the public servant knows is unlawful, intentionally denying or impeding another person in the exercise or enjoyment of a right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing that the conduct of the public servant is unlawful, or intentionally subjecting another person to sexual harassment; etc.

ACTION ITEMS

Details

Will Pennsylvania Nullify Health Mandates?

After having been reviewed multiple times since January 31st 2011, the Pennsylvania Senate passed Senate Bill 10 (SB10) by a vote of  29-19.  The bill is a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Pennsylvania which would prohibit any government from requiring the Pennsylvanians to buy health insurance. It states, in part –

“no law shall be enacted requiring a person to obtain or maintain health insurance coverage”

Pennsylvania Senate District 25′s Joseph B. Scarnati is the prime sponsor of the bill which still requires a vote by the General Assembly’s House of Representatives. Once fully passed by both houses, it can be placed on the ballot for a statewide referendum.

Already, ten states have passed similar bills, commonly referred to as the Health Care Freedom Act. With the current SCOTUS review of Obamacare, this action along with many others currently in process in other states, sends a clear message that Americans are not content with the Federal Government encroaching on their liberties.

The amendment, if approved by the people of Pennsylvania, would also prevent the federal government from imposing fines or penalties against people who don’t buy insurance — up to 2.5 percent of household income.

Details

ACTION ALERT: Health Care Nullification Bill in New Jersey!

New Jersey A861 would render the federal “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”  null and void in the state.  Sponsored by Assemblywoman Alison L. McHose, this bill not only voids the insurance mandate,  it declares the entire act null and void within the state.

“This bill renders the federal “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” Pub.L.111-148, as amended by the federal “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,” Pub.L.111-152, and any federal rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, null and void and of no force and effect in the State of New Jersey.”

A861 currently sits in the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee. Your help is needed to get it moving towards a floor vote (action steps below)

BASIS FOR THE BILL

The bill itself provides the rational for nullification, based on the Tenth Amendment:

Details

To Some, the Tenth and Nullification is Taboo

With a quip typical of a main stream media talking head, Scott Keyes traversed some well worn turf in the article entitled “Strict Constitutionalist’ Ron Paul Endorses Nullification As A ‘Very Good’ Idea”. In the post, Keyes attempts to justify federal legislative oversteps by referring to any act of congress as “the supreme law of the land” and thus, are good to go.  He makes no distinction in this assertion for the sovereigns of the state, or the individual.

It’s sad really…

As the Constitution lays out the framework for our great republic, the first ten amendments guarantee that the government cannot encroach on, or take away our freedom and liberty.

Our natural rights.

You might recall those. We have been losing a lot of them lately.

He comes to this conclusion by referring to the test of the Constitution which “states clearly that acts of Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”

Keyes interpretation of the constitutional passage show no regard for the Ninth or Tenth Amendments.

Details

Rand Paul Reads TenthAmendmentCenter.com

Or, at least, we think alike. The junior Senator from Kentucky recently said that to believe in a “right” to health care one must support slavery: I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. He’s right of course. As I pointed out nearly two…

Details

New England Nullification Movement Grows

Back in March, the town of Sedgwick, Maine courageously voted to nullify certain unconstituional federal regulations dealing with local food production. The ordinance was passed in response to S.510, the odious Food Safety and Modernization Act, written by agricorps like Monsanto to put their smaller competitors out of business, and passed by Congress under the cover…

Details

Oklahoma governor puts taxpayers’ money where her mouth is

Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin just set an important precedent. By rejecting $54.6 million in federal money to begin implementation of ObamaCare, the governor has firmly set herself against the unconstitutional law and with the citizens of her state. From Fox News: To make it clear Oklahoma will develop its own plan, the state will not accept a $54.6 million…

Details

Who’s the real hypocrite?

Some guy named Doug Thompson took a cheap shot at Ron Paul recently in an incoherent article titled “The Constitutional hypocrisy of Ron Paul.” From what I could gather, Thompson’s claim is that Ron Paul supports nullification and the 10th Amendment, therefore Ron Paul is a racist because a document published in 1956 called the Southern Manifesto once alluded to nullification.

No mention of the Virginia or Kentucky Resolutions, or of Thomas Jefferson.

Details

New England Nullification Tradition Marches On

Though many living in New England today might be loathe to admit it, there is a long history of nullification being used in the region to defy unconstitutional federal edicts. This week, the town of Sedgwick, Maine voted to carry on that proud tradition by nullifying certain federal agricultural regulations.

They did so through what might be the most legitimate form of democratic expression left in America: the New England town meeting. (Which have been held in the Sedgwick town hall since 1794.)

According to one report, the residents of Sedgwick voted to enact a law that not only permits

“Sedgwick citizens…to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing,”

but declares that

Details