Tag Archives | Commerce Clause

Bill Proposed To Keep Federal Hands Off Alabama-Produced Firearms

By on January 28, 2013 in Activism, Constitution, Education, Firearms Freedom Act, Government, History, Liberty, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers

There has been a growing number of states recently looking to pass laws that nullify overreaching federal intrusions on Second Amendment rights with Alabama being one of the latest states looking to protect the natural rights of its citizens.

Alabama Senate Bill 43 is called the ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ and it intends to ‘exempt from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within the borders of Alabama.’ It was introduced on Jan. 11 and will be read and referred to the State Senate committee on Judiciary Feb. 5.

Although this bill does not go after all possible federal restrictions on guns within Alabama, it is definitely another step in the right direction toward building resistance at the state level to malevolent power grabs from Washington D.C. The text of the bill begins specifically with an explanation of the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution as the foundation for this peace of legislation.

“The guaranty of [Tenth Amendment] powers is a matter of contract between the state of Alabama and its people and the United States as of the time that compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Alabama and the United States in 1819,” the bill states.

The bill continues on to cite its own State Constitution as grounds for its legitimacy and necessity saying, “Section 26 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, secures to Alabama citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of an individual Alabama citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state.”

In addition to safeguarding the Bill of Rights, the bill also contains a nice TAC-approved history lesson with references to the compact theory of the Union endorsed by Thomas Jefferson. The people of Alabama apparently don’t interpret the Constitution as giving the federal government absolute power to run roughshod over their freedoms.

Senate Bill 43 was co-sponsored by State Senators Allen, Fielding, Smith, Waggoner and Ward.

LEGISLATION AND TRACKING

If you would like to see model legislation to introduce in your state to nullify federal firearm laws, please see The Tenth Amendment Center’s Model Legislation: The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act.

Track the status of Firearms Freedom Acts in states around the country HERE

ACTION ITEMS

For more information on contacting your State Senator to urge their support of this bill if you are a resident of Alabama, click HERE.

Comments { 14 }

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.

Comments { 1 }

The Commerce Clause super precedent

By on November 17, 2010 in Uncategorized

Ken Cuccinelli, Attorney-General for the State of Virginia, makes a cogent point in his interview with CNSNews.com regarding the Commerce Clause of our federal constitution: Would the newly freed citizens of the 13 States have given the federal Congress and president more power to regulate their commercial activity in the Constitution of 1787 than the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain exercised over them when they were colonists? The answer of course is No. To quote Cuccinelli, ‘Otherwise, why rebel?’ Continue Reading →

Comments { 1 }

Wheat, Weed, and ObamaCare

By on September 20, 2010 in Founding Principles, Judiciary, Law

From Reason.TV – “How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful”

Comments { 1 }

Yarmuth stumbles into the truth

By on August 31, 2010 in Big Government, Elections

Every line of thought moves toward a logical conclusion.

But few ever carry their thinking far enough to grasp the ultimate ramifications of their ideas. In a recent radio interview, Congressman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) inadvertently walked right up to the edge of the cliff waiting for those who hold to the progressive notion of a “living breathing” Constitution.

Yarmuth appeared on Mandy Connell’s show on WHAS in Louisville the morning of Aug. 27. During a discussion on the federal health care bill, Connell asked Yarmuth where he believes Congress gets the authority to require every American to purchase health insurance.

Predictably, Yarmuth appealed to the commerce clause.

So Connell asked the logical follow-up question: what can’t the federal government do if it can mandate citizens to buy a product?

In a candid moment, Yarmuth provided a revealing answer.

“It really doesn’t prohibit the government from doing virtually anything – the federal government. So I don’t know the answer to your question, because I am not sure there is anything under current interpretation of the commerce clause that the government couldn’t do.”

Wow.

Then the Democrat from Louisville tried to backtrack.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

Comments { 1 }

The Power to Create is not the Power to Enforce

By on August 2, 2010 in Constitution

The commerce clause is being used to by the federal government to regulate the economic aspect of our lives.  It claims it has the right to establish laws that regulate how businesses conduct themselves.   This is not correct because the commerce clause was always meant to break down trade barriers that states may attempt to impose onto each other.

Now lets assume, for the sake of argument, that the federal government’s interpretation is correct and look at one particular enumerated power which is the power to tax.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This gives congress two powers which are the power to lay taxes and the power to collect taxes.   The power to lay taxes is the power to establish laws that demand citizens pay taxes while the power to collect taxes is the power to establish laws that actually do collect taxes.   Without the power to collect taxes the federal government wouldn’t have the ability to collect them and under the tenth amendment that power would fall to the states.  Continue Reading →

Comments { 2 }

More Commerce Clause Clownery

By on March 29, 2010 in Constitution, Delegated Powers

Several months ago, I wrote a blog post titled, “Commerce Clause Gives Federal Government the Power to do Everything.” Whenever politicians are questioned about their totalitarian actions and asked what gives them the power to commence such actions, they have one standard response: the interstate commerce clause. This is the established response of politicians and their apologists, and it replaces what would otherwise be no response. This has become a big joke that’s being questioned by a whole lot of keen folks. Here’s another such event described in a recent article on CNSNews:

The day after the House approved the health care bill, a reporter asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs about the lawsuits some states were threatening against the legislation on the grounds that the provision forcing all Americans to buy health insurance was unconstitutional.

“I think there’s pretty longstanding precedent on the constitutionality of this,” Gibbs said, without offering any substantive explanation.

Later in the briefing, another reporter pressed Gibbs on the question. “You say there’s established law, established precedent,” said the reporter. “On what? What is it? What is the established precedent?”

“On the regulation of interstate commerce,” said Gibbs.

If you have not seen the Judge’s latest sound off, watch it. This is one of his best moments ever. As Napolitano wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

One of those powers—the power “to regulate” interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.

Here is more from the Judge on the commerce clause.

Now see this excellent, short commentary from Stephan Kinsella on the commerce clause and its intentions. Also note the Jeffrey Rogers Hummel article he points to – “The Constitution as a Counter-Revolution: A Tribute to the Anti-Federalists.”

Comments { 3 }

The Constitutional Case Against The Federal Sports Gambling Ban

By on March 10, 2010 in Constitution

sports-bettingThe Federal ban on sports betting has been blasted by anyone who knows anything about the subject for a number of different reasons. Though the US professional leagues suggest that sports betting threatens the integrity of their games, the opposite is the case. This is important because there would still be no shortage of outlets for college sport wagering, be it offshore or with your local illegal bookmaker. The professional bookmaking industry is usually where any type of compromised or fixed game is discovered. Ultimately, the true injustice of banning sports betting lies in its contempt for the Constitution.

The Congress of the United States has shown very little respect for the Constitution in recent years. Were it to abide strictly by the role outlined for it by the founding fathers, the Legislative Branch of our government would have to relinquish any number of its powers in a variety of areas. The primary problem with our Congress is that it has increasingly become a collection of career politicians rather than a body representative of its constituency. Every increase in power at the Federal level must be brought about by a usurpation of state and local sovereignty and, more alarmingly, personal liberty.

The Federal prohibition of sports wagering which was enacted a few years back is of very dubious Constitutionality. Were it not for the grandfather clause, which allowed it to remain legal in jurisdictions in which it already existed, it would have certainly been struck down as unconstitutional on a number of different fronts. Ironically, the Nevada gaming industry wasnt too concerned at the passage of this law; indeed, they certainly liked the fact that they could go about business as usual while potential competition from other states for the sports wagering dollar was completely curtailed.

Unfortunately, the mere fact that a proposed law or initiative is unconstitutional offers little protection for the citizenry. In fact, the concept of state sovereignty is one of the most important–and most abused–in the Constitution:

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.

The overriding concern of the writers and framers of the Constitution was that the personal liberty of the individual not be violated by a too-powerful central government. In other words, unless the power in question has been expressly given to the Federal government by the Constitution, and/or unless it has expressly been prohibited to the states (as in the case of treaty making) it is the right of each individual state to govern themselves as they see fit. If an individual state chooses not to regulate a certain activity, it is the right of each individual citizen to make their own decision.

So, you should be asking yourself at this point, where exactly does the Constitution delegate to the Federal government the right to make policy on sports gambling? The answer is that it doesnt, and it is very questionable that they have the Constitutional authority to do so.

Fortunately for all freedom loving Americans the founding fathers would beg to differ.

Sports gambling may seem a minimally important issue to some, but the erosion of liberty is an incremental danger. The danger to broader concepts of personal liberty may seem a million miles away, but with each additional law intended to protect us from this or that the Federal government becomes larger and more powerful and the rights of the sovereign states”and the individuals that comprise them”are shrinking and being weakened.

Comments { 0 }

Reclaiming the Commerce Clause in Virginia

By on March 9, 2010 in Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty

CommerceFor decades, using a tortured definition of interstate commerce, Congress has tried to regulate everything, from wheat grown on an individual’s own land for personal consumption, to weed grown in an individual’s own home for the same purpose. Unfortunately (with some notable dissenters aside), the Supreme Court has largely condoned and encouraged such reprehensible legislative behavior.

But now, adding to a banner year for the 10th Amendment in the Commonwealth, Virginia is once again leading the way in saying “Back Off” to the feds.

In late February, the House of Delegates passed HB 18, introduced by Delegate Mark Cole, which

Provides that all goods manufactured or made in Virginia and all services performed in Virginia, when such goods or services are held, maintained, or retained in Virginia, shall not be subject to the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce. The measure shall not relate to goods or services ordered, procured, or purchased by the federal government or by a federal contractor.

Such bill might not at first seem revolutionary — until one considers how much of our current unconstitutional federal leviathan the Supreme Court has attempted to stuff behind that tiny fig leaf known as the Commerce Clause.

From ObamaCare to Cap and Trade to the Controlled Substances Act, there are countless instances in which goods or services that consumers might want to purchase, and which could be produced and consumed exclusively within Virginia (or any other state), could be considered in violation of existing or future federal law.

With the passage of a bill like HB 18, Virginia would become the first state to reject the ludicrous and intellectually dishonest constitutional rationale that underpins so much federal activity, and reclaim the rightful authority to regulate commerce within its own borders.

CLICK HERE – for the Tenth Amendment Center’s Legislative Tracking page for States Seeking to Nullify Federal Power over Intrastate Commerce

Comments { 0 }

South Carolina to Ban Federal Currency?

By on February 18, 2010 in Constitution, Constitutional Tender, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty

money-toilet-paperImagine my shock upon opening the Drudge Report this morning and seeing this article from CBSNews.com:

South Carolina Rep. Mike Pitts has introduced legislation that would mandate that gold and silver coins replace federal currency as legal tender in his state.

In an interview, Pitts told Hotsheet that he believes that “if the federal government continues to spend money at the rate it’s spending money, and if it continues to print money at the rate it’s printing money, our economic system is going to collapse.”

“The Germans felt their system wouldn’t collapse, but it took a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread in the 1930s,” he said. “The Soviet Union didn’t think their system would collapse, but it did. Ours is capable of collapsing also.”

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

… As one expert told the Scoop, however, his bill would likely be ruled unconstitutional because it “violates a perfectly legal and Constitutional federal law, enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, that federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts public and private.”

Now, I know there are folks out there who understand this much better than me, but I don’t think that “expert” is correct. And besides, I am always particularly wary when “experts” start citing the Commerce Clause. That’s usually statist code for “It’s not actually in the Constitution, but we’re going to do it anyway.”

If my memory serves, the Constitution only gives Congress the power to coin money, not print it. That’s a crucial difference, considering that precious metals are, by definition, precious, and will continue to be valuable long after you’ve burned those green pieces of paper in your wallet for heat.

CLICK HERE – to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Constitutional Tender Legislation Tracking Page

Comments { 7 }