I guess we should be pleased; Rachel Maddow’s blog reads the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center. It’s true, her blog linked to a picture we posted from the January 18th Lobby Day. Of course, it was done in the context of describing us tenthers as “out-there,” but when you’re as unappreciated as the Constitution is these days, any press is good press. Later,…Details
For three days last week, on the third floor of the Francis Marion Hotel in downtown Charleston, SC, a group of scholars have been meeting to discuss the history of nullification and secession in American law and politics, and the continued relevance of those concepts today. I had the privilege of joining them for the…Details
Tom Woods Speech at the Campaign for Liberty Regional Conference in Atlanta Georgia 1/ 15/2010 – talks about the Federal Reserve, and the principle of nullification in history and modern times.
Delegate Charles W. Carrico, Sr. has introduced House Bill 69 (HB69) in the Virginia Legislature. The bill, known as the Firearms Freedom Act, “Declares that firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Virginia and retained within the borders of Virginia are not subject to federal law or regulation under the authority of Congress to regulate…Details
Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis has introduced the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB1230) – prefiled for the 2010 legislative session. The bill “Asserts the right of the State of Missouri to regulate the intrastate use and acquisition of certain firearms pursuant to the reserved powers of the state over intrastate commerce and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”Details
On FreedomWatch, Andrew Napolitano and Lew Rockwell talk about the principles of Nullification, Secession and Interposition. Watch it: If the federal government were trying to do something within a state that was unconstitutional, the state government could say – you have no jurisdiction to do something illegal within our state. Nullification has a long history…Details
In the health care saga’s latest twist, New York Senator, Chuck Schumer, has proposed a solution that would allow states to “opt out” of the public option, should there be one included with the final bill. Talking Points Memo reports: We’re chasing the ball on a new idea (is it a trial balloon? is it…Details
When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned. While the media of late tends to focus on the new crop of states…Details
“As Constitution day approaches…” (FYI, it’s this Thursday, September 17th!) – that’s the headline of Kay B. Day’s new article on The US Report. Here’s an excerpt: September 17 is Constitution Day, so it seems appropriate that states are rallying in an effort to combat a federal government expanding beyond its historically legal powers. Two…Details
While the traditional left has been way off base when covering issues related to the 10th Amendment, Chris Weigant over at Huffington Post is much more fair in his review of both nullification specifically, and the 10th Amendment Movement in general.
Usually, places like HuffPo, MSNBC, ThinkProgress, and elsewhere slam the 10th as being pointless, try to make fun of people who believe in limited government under the 10th by calling them “Tenthers,” try to associate the entire movement with vile racism, and other nasty rhetoric designed to distract from the real issues.
On the other hand, there’s Weigant, who’s obviously making a sincere effort to give a fair report. I think he make some good points, too. Here’s an excerpt:
The Tenth Amendment is one of the rarer parts of the Bill of Rights for the Supreme Court to actually rule on, but every so often one of these cases is taken up by the Court. And, increasingly, Republicans are using it as a “last resort” against federal laws they don’t like. Although, to be fair, one of the more recent decisions (Gonzales v. Raich) went against a California woman who argued that since she was growing medical marijuana on her own land for her own consumption, the constitutional powers of the federal government to regulate interstate trade simply did not apply. The Supreme Court disagreed, but at least it was consistent, since it had ruled during World War II that a wheat farmer could not use this argument to escape federal war efforts to regulate wheat production (Wickard v. Filburn). In both cases, the Court reasoned, even if the farmer didn’t sell his or her crop, it could still impact the interstate commerce for that crop. Meaning Congress could, indeed, regulate itDetails