Navigation

Tag Archives | Nullification

Michigan Legislature Works For Firearms Freedom

By on February 3, 2013 in Constitution, Firearms Freedom Act, Liberty, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 0

Michigan is yet another state that is fighting for its residents’ right to keep and bear arms. Over a dozen State House members are co-sponsoring a Firearms Freedom Act that was introduced on Jan. 24.

House Bill 4099 is supported by Reps. MacMaster, Genetski, Lauwers, Rogers, McMillin, Somerville, Pettalia, Daley, Rendon, Kurtz, Haveman, Kelly and Johnson and is intended to stop the federal gun grabbers from controlling firearms made within the State of Michigan. Michigan joins Pennsylvania, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina and a whole slew of other states that are battling back against federal gun control measures with legislation introduced during the 2013 session.

The bill asserts state sovereignty and affirms the natural rights of its citizens stating, “Amendment II of the constitution of the United States reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Michigan was admitted to statehood, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Michigan and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Michigan and the United States.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 0

Pennsylvania Town Working To Nullify Federal Gun Control

By on January 9, 2013 in Big Brother, Big Government, Government, Law, Nullification 12

With the Obama administration winning a second term and gun control publicly on the national agenda, more and more people are standing up at the state and local levels to protect Constitutional freedoms. This is exactly what is occurring in the small town of Gilberton, Pennsylvania.

Chief of Police Mark Kessler will propose a ’2nd Amendment Preservation’ Ordinance during the January 24, 2013 meeting of city council. According to the text of the ordinance, it will be ‘nullifying all federal, state or local acts in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States along with section 21 Right to Bear Arms of the Pennsylvania constitution.’

The ordinance continues on with some strong words for the authoritarians in Washington D.C. who wish to trample upon the Constitutional rights of Americans saying, “It shall be the duty of the Governing body of Gilberton Borough and within all of its boundaries within the State of Pennsylvania to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal, state or local acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States along with section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution or any violation of this ordinance.” You can read the rest of the bill by clicking HERE.

Police Chief Kessler says that he intends for this bill to send a message to the Federal Government that the spirit of resistance is alive and well within the American people Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 12

Boehner May Be Onto Something

By on January 4, 2013 in Uncategorized 3

After what seemed like endless negotiations, empty rhetoric and so on, it appears the House and Senate have managed to kick the can further down the road.  For those familiar with the euphemism if not the reality, that means they have “avoided the fiscal cliff” for the time being.  And there was much rejoicing…yay!  This did not occur, however, before tempers flared in the White House lobby.

Yesterday, according to the Huffington Post, House Speaker John Boehner approached Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and told him to perform an act with himself our basic biology courses used to tell us required two people to complete.  When Reid asked Boehner what he was talking about, Boehner repeated said instructions.

Some people maybe offended by the Speaker’s choice of words, while others may applaud them.  Others still may appreciate the sentiment, but see a lack of action to back it up.  After all, Reid got what he wanted, a bill that raises taxes, does nothing about rampant spending, and does even less about the oversized, overreaching assortment of unconstitutional federal agencies designed to bully the States and the People into submission.  These will continue to grow, claiming more power today than yesterday, but less than tomorrow.  Yes, John Boehner’s words to Harry Reid may sound tough, but there is no substance to them.  If only there were someone or a group of people who regularly said those words and meant them.  Oh, but there is.

Founded in 2005, the Tenth Amendment Center this year will celebrate eight years of telling the Feds to go delete an expletive with itself.  Our founder Michael Boldin has spent years spreading the word about what Presidents, be they Obama or Bush, House Speakers, whether Pelosi or Boehner, Senate Majority Leaders, regardless of whether they go by Reid or McConnell, as well as nameless, faceless bureaucrats, what they can do with their statist, anti-constitutional so-called laws.  Every time a Governor, State Legislature, county or municipal government or general populace of a state nullifies an unconstitutional federal act, every time they refuse to implement unjust policies past and present, they are heeding the call of the Tenther and saying, “We don’t need no stinkin’ permission to exercise our rights.”

So this year, when Congress wants to push for implementation of the ObamaCare exchanges, or tell us we really, really need to implement REAL ID this time, or crack down on marijuana, or the People have to give up their guns, we know what to tell our state and local officials to tell them.  It’s what the Tenthers have been saying all along, and thanks to our illustrious Speaker of the House, we have another…interesting way of saying it.

Continue Reading 3

VIDEO: A Rousing Defense of the Constitution and Nullification

By on December 7, 2012 in Activism, Constitution, Education, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Liberty, Nullification, State Sovereignty 3

At a time when the Republican establishment is doing everything they can to alienate their constituents, and nullification measures are getting introduced around the country, it becomes more important than ever to step up and put our best foot forward when presenting our ideas to citizens desperately looking for a way to fight back against unjust federal power. Luckily, we have a shining example to follow in constitutional attorney KrisAnne Hall who gave an eloquent defense of ObamaCare nullification at the Florida Senate Select Committee on Monday, December 3rd.

WATCH IT:

“Some claim that [ObamaCare] must be submitted to as law of the land since the Supreme Court made its declaration from on high. This admits that we are not a Republic of sovereign states, but a monarchy. The supremacy clause declares the Constitution to be supreme, not the federal government,” Hall said in her stirring repudiation of the bill. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 3

Nothing to Worry About on Indefinite Detention? Guess Again

By on December 3, 2012 in Big Brother, Big Government, Constitution, Nullification, Politicians 12

As mentioned in Friday’s feature article about the Feinstein-Lee Amendment by Tenth Amendment Center Legal Analyst Blake Filippi, it did absolutely nothing to rectify the loss of rights Americans faced from the indefinite detention provisions in the 2012 NDAA that we are working to nullify throughout the country. However, Senator Mike Lee disagrees about the effectiveness of the amendment and is using quite a bizarre rationale to defend it.

Lee released a press release on Friday in an attempt to clarify concerns with the Feinstein-Lee Amendment (http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ID=142f4fe6-3446-4d1a-b82b-df9503db1952). He stated that the 2012 NDAA did not actually authorize indefinite detention of American citizens. If this is the case, then why even pass the amendment in the first place? If the 2012 NDAA was so hunky dory and didn’t authorize indefinite detention of Americans, why propose an amendment to supposedly ensure that Americans wouldn’t be indefinitely detained (which was assumed by everyone to be a response to last year’s Act)?

Lee could not deny that last year’s NDAA would be the ‘Act of Congress’ needed to allow for indefinite detention of Americans. In his press release, he did not quote the provisions of the NDAA which are cause to alarm and we are working to nullify. He omitted this information while assuring us that since a sentence within the Act said that the government would never use the powers that they usurped against citizens that we are supposed to have no fears and feel protected thanks to his work. I’m not buying that the same gang that extra-judicially kills American citizens is going to have restraint in their interpretation of the 2012 NDAA, as Mike Lee apparently does.

Libertarian Republican Congressman Justin Amash agrees with the Tenth Amendment Center interpretation of Lee’s amendment saying, “The Feinstein amendment to the 2013 NDAA does NOT protect you from indefinite detention without charge or trial. In fact, it explicitly permits such detention so long as the detention is approved by an Act of Congress . . . such as the 2012 NDAA.”

This just goes to show you that even people who do a good job of talking the talk might not always walk the walk. Whether he’s simply misguided in an attempt to protect the Constitution for Americans or he’s working to push something he knows will have no effect to quell push-back against federal power grabs, tea party Senator Mike Lee is doing no favors for liberty working with Senator Feinstein and releasing misleading press releases about it. It’s become more obvious than ever that federal bureaucrats aren’t going to protect our liberty, and we’re going to have to work at the state and local level to circumvent the D.C.vers through nullification to protect our sacred rights.

Continue Reading 12

Nullifying ObamaCare: An Alternative To The Supreme Court Ruling

By on November 29, 2012 in Big Government, Commentary, Government, Health Care, Law, Nullification 5

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was constitutional.

The Administration takes this as a green light to implement ObamaCare to its fullest extent possible. Because the election went in President Obama’s favor, the Senate and House have lost any desire to overturn the law. Without the overturn, it looks like the law making Obamacare a reality is going to stand forever.

Or is it?

In order to make Obamacare work properly, as it currently stands, there are two mainstays of Obamacare that must be carried out on the state level. Each state must implement an insurance exchange and they must drastically expand Medicare according to the law. These two items of ObamaCare will cost the states untold millions of dollars to implement.

When federal law goes bad, it is up to the states to protect their citizens. The legal theory is called nullification. Nullification is the idea that any given state has the right to invalidate federal laws that they consider unconstitutional. Somewhere along the line the Supreme Court got it wrong in their reasoning. Accordingly, it is like saying that since the government has a stake in GM it can create a law that says we can only buy GM cars. If we buy any other type of car we have to pay an extra tax on it. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 5

Nullification: The means to reestablish federalism

By on November 23, 2012 in Uncategorized 62

In a USA Today article titled A solution to secession – federalism, Glenn Harlan “Instapundit” Reynolds  proposes federalism as a way to rein in government without splitting up the Union.

He defines federalism as, ” Let the central government do the things that only central governments can do — national defense, regulation of trade to keep the provinces from engaging in economic warfare with one another, protection of basic civil rights — and then let the provinces go their own way in most other issues.” After all, that political philosophy is the foundation of the country.

The Instapundit doesn’t suggest how we might actually make that happen.

Judging by the size and power of the central government, the reach of the laws it passes, and the accelerating rate of increase in all of the above, expecting the Congress and president to voluntarily stop doing what they’ve been doing for the past 100 years, or so, is insanity. It doesn’t matter which party wrests control of the system, the federal government continues to grow. Don’t expect the Supreme Court to side with Liberty, either. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 62

Texas Moves To Nullify NDAA

By on November 18, 2012 in Big Government, Congress, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Government, Liberty, Military, Nullification 61

House Bill 149 (LS: 83R) – Texas Liberty Preservation Act.

Website: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB149

HB149 is a Bill introduced in the Texas Legislative Process on Nov. 12, 2012, by its author (Rep. Lyle Larson) and currently sits at stage 1 (filed). The design of the Bill is to nullify portions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) implemented by the federal law. Specifically, sections 1021 and 1022 are being made invalid and illegal in the State of Texas. You can read the entire bill here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB00149I.pdf#navpanes=0

Section (1) (b) (1) of the Bill lays out the constitutional groundwork of the findings that prompted the bill in the first place. It notes the limitations of the federal government under the 10th Amendment. It read:

(b) The legislature finds that:
(1) The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorizes the United States federal government to exercise only those powers specifically delegated to it under Article I, Section 8, United States Constitution;

Many people think that whatever the federal government creates as law it is the “supreme law of the land” but that is not true. Often the federal government creates laws that are thrown out because they go beyond the powers delegated to the government in the Constitution. Section (1) (b) (3) of the Bill makes this point eloquently clear. It reads: Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 61

Do the Secessionists Have As Much Courage As the Nullifiers?

By on November 13, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Commentary, Delegated Powers, Elections, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Health Care, History, Nullification, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 9

By now, anybody who even casually follows the Tenther movement and the liberty movement in general has likely heard about the secession petitions circulating.  Yesterday, I had personally gone from only hearing about Louisiana, to hearing my State of New Jersey had one too, to hearing the count was up to twenty States.  That could be an old number by the time this makes it into the Tenth Amendment Center blog.

The language of these petitions is interesting, as they “ask” the federal government to let said States peaceably withdraw from the United States.  Although I confess to having signed, originally for Louisiana upon first finding out, and then for New Jersey, it was more out of curiosity than anything else.

Apparently, any State circulating these petitions requires a minimum of 25,000 signatures within thirty days in order to receive a White House response.  Texas has nearly double the required signatures, and Louisiana is likely a day away from hitting the threshold.  Several states are beyond halfway there.  Check to see if your State is on the list.  While you’re at it, go ahead and sign, so you can get your response.  The most likely response from the White House is a familiar word to anybody in the nullification movement, “No.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 9

Hold His Feet to the Fire? Please

By on September 25, 2012 in Politicians 3

Republicans have all but acknowledged that Mitt Romney is not a conservative, and that he is no different in substance than Barack Obama, and they have settled. Some, those still in denial, steadfastly hold on to his rhetoric, but most have accepted that their nominee is so zealous for political power that he has no qualms about playing either a progressive or conservative, so long as he wins an election. It seems then, that Romney will change his rhetorical tone just as quickly as he’ll spray tan for Univision on Wednesday, and scrub it all off for 60 Minutes on Sunday.

In a near-textbook case of denial, many on the Right have acknowledged all of this, but insist that voting for him is still the “lesser of two evils,” and what’s really important is “defeating Obama.” Their answer is to simply hold “Mitt Romney’s feet to the fire” once Obama’s gone.

But what is “holding his feet to the fire,” what does it look like (aside from the obvious connotation with torture, repression, and despotism)?

More to the point, how do activists hold a president’s feet to the fire? After all, he has the power to drone us all to death with the stroke of pen, and make us buy stuff, even if we don’t want to. I’ve given this some thought and have concluded that it can’t be done; you’d have to be living in some bizarro-world to think otherwise.

For instance, if they (the Republicans, Tea Partiers, and anyone else planning to vote Empty Suit 2012) think they’re going to hold his feet to the fire, why don’t they hold Obama’s feet to the fire now, what’s stopping them?

Oh, but you see, Obama’s too much of an ideologue, he’s too immersed in his Marxist-Socialist-Leninist ways, he can’t be persuaded to change his ways, they’d reply.

OK. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 3