Left and Right Agree to Disagree

After an embittered presidential election, a never-ending kabuki on Washington finances, and now a fierce debate over property rights, many would be surprised to know that members from opposite sides of the political spectrum have found some common ground. Betsy Woodruf at National Review Online sure was. She was shocked to find agreement between the Republican Governor of Illinois, Mitch Daniels, and Tom Dickenson of Rolling Stone magazine regarding medical marijuana and federalism. Both, it seems, favor letting the states determine their own drug policy, even though they may not agree on what each state ultimately decides.

First, note that agreement between the two parties happens more often than not. In principle they all agree on war, debt, entitlements, taxation, police statism, drones, the central bank, socialistic healthcare, prohibition, and many other issues. Of course they disagree on just how much debt there should be; if the military ought to bomb the people of third-world countries or drop bombs and machine-gun them; and whether individuals should forfeit 35 percent of their income or only 33 percent. Some diversity of thought.

But what’s noteworthy about this particular case is that each can agree because neither is trying to force the other into submitting to a single policy. Here we see one of the great things about decentralized government: it tends to reduce conflict by allowing various groups to “live and let live.” This is isn’t possible when all policy decisions are made by one body, when a polity becomes too big.

Details

Is Gay Marriage the Key to Ending Obamacare?

In David Kopel’s July 9th post, he shares with readers some of the legal reasons why the recent Gay Marriage decision was a boon for Tenthers.  Though current nullification efforts do not depend on the courts for validation, this article is important to study.  Many Americans still find themselves as disciples of the judiciary & for debates with people of this mindset, you can share with them some of the points below.  It seems that even the courts are taking a renewed interest in our Tenth Amendment.
Details

Proof the DOMA Ruling was Spot On.

Well, “proof” is defined by perspective, right? All the proof I need on this one is just one man’s name.

Jack Balkin.

Jack is a “leading constitutional scholar” from Yale. What does that mean? He advocates the living constitution. You know the one – the kind of constitution that morphs and changes based on the whims of politicians, judges, and Jack himself.

I consider him one of the worst of the worst in this field. And, what did he have to say about the DOMA case?

Details

Federal Court Makes Rare Ruling in Favor of the 10th Amendment

A Federal Judge today ruled in favor of the Tenth Amendment, which is an unusually rare result. What was the issue? DOMA and gay marriage. From the WSJ blog:

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from giving pension and other benefits to same sex couples, is unconstitutional, reports the Associated Press.

Tauro wrote that the 1996 law ran afoul of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment,” Tauro wrote.

The problem, though, is that they don’t apply this same principle to everything. They should – and need to.

A few quick points.

Details

Tenthers from the Left?

Yup, that’s right – they come from the left too. Ashby Jones reports on the Tenther movement from the liberal perspective at the Wall Street Journal: We’ve written a bit in recent months about the so-called “Tenther” movement. It’s a push by many, mostly on the right side of the political spectrum, to invoke the…

Details