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…Details
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.Details
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.Details
House Bill 149 (LS: 83R) – Texas Liberty Preservation Act.
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:Details
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.”Details
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.
This past weekend Mitt Romney said that “there are a number of things that I like in [Obamacare] that I’m going to put in place.” Such a revelation is yet another example of why relying on federal politicians -particularly of the Republican persuasion – to restore human liberty is foolish.
Throughout the primary season Romney assured Republican voters that he was against the Affordable Care Act and, if he was elected president, would put an end to it. In June of 2011 he told CNN’s Piers Morgan that “if I’m president I will repeal Obamacare.” (The entire clip is full of gems, and worth watching, if you have the stomach for such things). He continued this promise throughout the debates, and used it a number of times to parry attacks from Rick Santorum on the issue.
That he’s now reversing his rhetoric should come as no surprise. Such flip-flopping is standard fare with Mitt Romney, as virtually everyone is aware; his YouTube collections of contradictory statements and backpedaling are impressive, if not comical for their sheer numbers. Now, this is not to say that other politicians don’t also have similar montages, plenty do, but what’s striking about Romney’s are that some go on for twenty minutes.
No doubt some conservatives and right-leaning independents are surprised and disappointed by this shift,Details
[This essay was first published on the author's personal blog]
Mitt Romney was officially made the GOP’s nominee last week and now the Ron Paul revolution is over. After nearly thirty years in public office the good doctor is gracefully retiring from politics, and while it’s not following a term in the oval office, he’s no-less started what may be the greatest mental brushfire in American history. And now with millions of people inspired by the message of liberty, the obvious question is “what’s next” for the remnant?
A number of writers and activists have weighed in on this topic and below is a collection of these valuable essays and commentaries with some of my own thoughts for the Paulbots and revolutionaries.
Justin Raimondo, editorial director of the indispensable Antiwar.com, had this to say regarding the true nature of the republican party and their rules:
As for the rules governing the political process – they can be changed at a moment’s notice, and bent any which way, in order to facilitate this seizure. Ron Paul’s supporters in the GOP learned that the hard way, as the Romneyites used their control of the party bureaucracy at the state and national levels to retroactively change the rules in order to unseat duly elected Paul delegates. In Maine, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Oregon, Oklahoma, and elsewhere, the party bosses have disenfranchised Paul voters – closing down party caucuses, rejecting as delegates anyone under 50, and calling the cops when all else failed.
This description of how the convention was governed – and the primaries leading up to it – is precisely how the state works in general. It’s evil and corrupting, and ultimately founded upon violence and coercion. The GOP’s rules are in essence no different from the “Pirate’s code,” which is “more what you call guidelines than actual rules,” to borrow from the famous movie line.Details
AzBlueMeanie claims in the article Neoconfederate insurrectionists in Arizona Legislature revive discredited ‘nullification’ theory that:
All elected officials in Arizona take the following oath of office:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of __________ according to the best of my ability, so help me God.”
And yet the Arizona legislature is populated by Neoconfederate insurrectionists who have violated their oath of office and are actively engaged in acts of domestic insurrection against the United States government.
Let’s get this straight now… AzBluemeanie believes that a state elected official who stands up against what he or she perceives to be a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution has “violated their oath of office and are actively engaged in acts of domestic insurrection against the United States government”. That is a pretty bold statement to make with no evidence to back it up. Nice job!
Let us bring some credentials into the discussion.Details
My point with this post isn’t to burn bridges or start some feud between organizations that have similar goals in mind, namely restricting federal power. But I do think it’s important to understand both what we’re up against and where each organization comes from. So, with that in mind, allow me to expand on a few points by addressing Mr. Walker’s comments.
He writes: “[Joel Poindexter] provides no proof where any judge has ever ruled the states have such authority [to use nullification].”
This assumes that the states need approval from the Feds before they can nullify the Feds, and as the title of this post states, “we don’t need no stinking [judges].” And to that point, let me first suggest that if any judge with any clout ever ruled that a state can nullify an unconstitutional “law,” as determined by that state, we’d likely be in far better shape. Any judge who would side with a state on this issue isn’t likely to acquiesce to federal overreach in the first place, and since judges are appointed to the bench by politicians, we’d have to assume this judge had a similar outlook on federalism.
It’s because judges aren’t overturning unlawful “laws” that nullification is even necessary, so who needs them? That’s sort of the point of nullification; it essentially removes the Feds from the equation, since by the time a state has decided to nullify something, the Feds must have failed somewhere in the process. Whether it’s a legislature with an overly broad interpretation of the commerce clause, an executive who decides to write his own laws or a court without the moral fiber to strike down one of the former, nullification is the answer.Details