Navigation

Tag Archives | 10th Amendment

ACTION ALERT: Help Maryland Nullify the TSA

By on April 4, 2012 in Activism

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 Continue Reading →

0

Will Pennsylvania Nullify Health Mandates?

By on April 2, 2012 in News

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. Continue Reading →

2

ACTION ALERT: Health Care Nullification Bill in New Jersey!

By on March 22, 2012 in Uncategorized

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: Continue Reading →

1

To Some, the Tenth and Nullification is Taboo

By on March 2, 2012 in Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Liberty, Nullification, State Sovereignty

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. Continue Reading →

3

Rand Paul Reads TenthAmendmentCenter.com

By on May 16, 2011 in Big Government, Commentary, Constitution, Health Care, Tenthers

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 years ago, it is impossible for government to grant a positive right, like health care, to anyone without first taking the good or service it is granting away from someone else, like a doctor.

As I said then

Whether by forcibly appropriating and redistributing the money to purchase care for those who lack it, or by arbitrarily devaluing the time and effort of those who provide it, once a government mandate supplants voluntary exchange, coercion must be used to exercise that “right” to health care.

But how can taking what belongs to another person (their money, time, or effort) through legislative force be a right?

Is that not the very essence of slavery?

It is, and it’s nice to see someone as prominent and influential as Rand Paul has the guts to say it.

0

New England Nullification Movement Grows

By on May 10, 2011 in Big Government, Constitution, Federalism, Government, Liberty, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement

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 of darkness on Christmas Eve last year. 

The Sedgwick ordinance stated in part that

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

and declares that

“It shall be unlawful for any law or regulation adopted by the state or federal government to interfere with the rights recognized by this Ordinance.” 

As I pointed out in March:

This is so basic and yet so revolutionary.

In these days when petty tyrants seem to be at the helm of every government agency, imposing their arbitrary and destructive will upon a cowering citizenry, it is refreshing to know that there are still people with the courage and capacity to stand up and say “Not in our town.”

Now another town has joined the fight.

Voters in Blue Hill, Maine have adopted a similar ordinance to protect their own local food producers.

Nullification, the legal and moral equivalent of peaceful non-cooperation, marches on as more and more Americans discover that tyranny cannot exist without the people’s consent.  

h/t LRC

0

Oklahoma governor puts taxpayers’ money where her mouth is

By on April 15, 2011 in Announcements, Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federal Funding, Federalism, Founding Principles, Health Care, Liberty, Nullification, Originalism, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers

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 federal grant for setting up a system where Oklahomans could shop for health insurance, Gov. Mary Fallin said Thursday.

Fallin said the state instead will use state and private money to form the system.

This is a step that advocates of nullification in many states have long sought. After all, it’s pretty obvious that threats of non-compliance with the feds are empty to the point of pathetic when state budgets still depend on grants of federal money (which is siphoned from their citizens to begin with).

However

Fallin’s announcement reverses her decision two months ago to accept the federal money.

Obviously the governor is bowing to some form of public pressure. In this age of  rampant and flagrant TSA molestation, it’s nice to see that pressure can still occasionally be successfully applied to public servants.

Perhaps other states whose legislatures have passed a version of the Health Care Freedom Act should consider following Oklahoma’s example.

4

Who’s the real hypocrite?

By on April 2, 2011 in Commentary, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Nullification, Tenthers

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. Continue Reading →

0

New England Nullification Tradition Marches On

By on March 10, 2011 in Announcements, Big Brother, Big Government, Commentary, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Drug War, Economics, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Judiciary, Law, Liberty, Nullification, Originalism, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty

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 Continue Reading →

1

South Carolina reps see the light on Commerce Clause

By on March 7, 2011 in Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federalism, Firearms Freedom Act, Founding Principles, Government, Originalism, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers

Two state representatives in South Carolina are pushing back against a federal ban of incandescent light bulbs set to begin in January of 2012. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to impose such a ban on the citizens of the several states, and it’s nice that South Carolina noticed.

From NetRightDaily:

“State Representatives Sandifer and Loftis are taking the lead in protecting the rights of South Carolina consumers, who don’t want the federal government telling them which light bulbs they must use,” Bill Wilson the President of Americans for Limited Government said.

“The basic concept of the bill is to allow the citizens of South Carolina to be able to continue to buy incandescent light bulbs,” said State Representative Bill Sandifer, Chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee.

“It is my strong belief that the feds have overstepped the Tenth Amendment, and now are venturing into telling us what kinds of lighting we can have in our homes,” Sandifer added.

Their bill (H. 3735) is essentially a version of the Firearms Freedom Acts and Intrastate Commerce Acts that have been popping up all over the country. Essentially, any light bulb manufactured and sold exclusively in South Carolina would not be subject to federal regulation.

Which is already the case, but it never hurts to repeat the obvious for emphasis when dealing with a government as corrupt and insular as the one in Washington, D.C.

1