Tag Archives | Senate

Federal Action Alerts Fail, Again

By on June 11, 2010 in Activism, Nullification

Over the past few days, I received tons of emails urging people to “take action!” What was the goal this time? Stopping EPA regulations. There was a Senate resolution that needed to be passed. And surprise, surprise – that action failed, just like most all of them do (HR1207 anyone?)

From the Washington Post:

A Senate resolution to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases failed narrowly Thursday, providing a temporary respite to environmental activists hoping to enact a mandatory cap on emissions before the end of the year.

But the 47 to 53 vote showed that even in the wake of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Congress remains divided over how best to address climate change. The contentious debate, in which some lawmakers suggested federal regulation would strike a devastating blow to the economy, suggested the Senate is far from decided on whether to put a price on the industrial emissions that stem from everyday activities such as lighting a home or driving a car….

Nah…what the 47-53 vote shows me is that spending all your energy begging federal politicians to vote for the constitution, or expand liberty – doesn’t work. No one remembers the 2nd place finisher in politics, especially on a run of the mill big-government vote like this.

How about a different direction – one where energy spent can actually make a difference? Still a lot of work, but at least we’ve got a chance. Brian Roberts was definitely on the right path with his recent article, Wanted: EPA out of Texas.

Comments { 1 }

The Senate is Going to “Grant” What?

By on January 1, 2010 in Health Care, State Sovereignty

Here is an example that goes straight to the heart of the problem of our government not adhering to the Constitution and usurping power from the states.

From a Politico.com article:

“The final Senate bill grants state legislatures the right to prevent insurance plans that operate in the proposed health insurance exchange from covering elective abortions. The changes also require people who seek abortion coverage through the exchange to pay two separate checks each month to their insurance company to “segregate” federal funds from private funds that pay for abortion.”

Since when have rights been legislated to the states and the people? Since when has congress had the power to grant states the rights that are already recognized in the Constitution?

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution clearly states that any powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states and for the people. Since the power to regulate the health of US citizens was not granted to the federal government in the Constitution, it is up to the individual states to decide how (and if) they wish to regulate the health care of their citizens.

Clearly, the states already have the right to prevent such federal programs from operating within their borders

harry-reid-arroganceAnother example of this absurdity would be when there was talk of the final bill possibly containing language that would “let the states opt out” of the public option. Apparently congress forgot that the states do not need permission to refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal mandates.

The states can flat out refuse to comply with, or nullify, any federal laws which are incompatible with the Constitution; they do not need a permission slip from the federal government in order to exercise their sovereignty.

Comments { 8 }

No Need to Abandon Ship

By on December 24, 2009 in Commentary, Constitution, Health Care

Now that the Senate has voted to pass National Health Care legislation and we’re one step closer to a DC mandate, many Americans are experiencing an even greater sense of frustration and despair. “All is lost…” has been tweeted more than a few times, but I am happy to write these lines:

Nothing is lost. Do not fear! The next stop is NOT mandated health care, the next stop is NULLIFICATION.

Here at the Center, activity has exploded as reaction to the senate health care bill washes over the republic. This is a very encouraging sign. What we needed as a people was to be shaken from our slumber and awakened to the truth about our Federal government. Unprecedented numbers of Americans are waking from a long and blissful sleep, due to the unconstitutional lengths that congress, urged on by the president, are going to.

Now that nullification is on the lips of patriots across the 50 states, the next and most critical point has got to be spread like wildfire: If your state does not currently support nullification efforts, do not give up and move to a state that does, but rather see to it that your home state follows suit.

The historical trends of blue and red do not give much insight as to a state’s potential for nullification. The battle for a constitutional government and state sovereignty is an issue that transcends left vs right, it’s a mainstream issue that is more about ‘the people’ vs tyranny than it is about political parties.

This key departure from traditional political rhetoric is the greatest challenge that the sovereignty movement currently faces, for if we can all leave behind lib vs con thinking and rally around the ideas of the constitution and liberty, the Feds don’t stand a chance.

Comments { 9 }

Repeal the 17th Amendment!

By on October 3, 2009 in Federalism

The fall of constitutional government and the deterioration of state sovereignty can mostly be traced to the disastrous decision to change the election of US Senators from the states to the actual citizens in an effort to make the Constitution “more democratic” via the 17th amendment. Randall Holcombe of The Independent Institute highlights how this even plays into the modern day health care debate.

Federal Health Care Reform, Paid For By the States, and the 17th Amendment

The root of this particular problem goes back nearly a century, to the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913. Prior to the 17th amendment Senators were chosen by their state legislatures, and represented the interests of their state governments. Under that system, this cost-shifting could not have been remotely feasible, because the representatives of the state governments, in the Senate, would not possibly sign off on it. Now, with the popular election of senators, Congress is more able to pass the costs of its initiatives on to the states.

I’ll go a step further and argue that the cost-sharing arrangement in the original Medicaid program approved in 1965 could not have passed had Senators been chosen by their state governments rather than by popular vote.

Lots of people have criticized Senator Baucus’s health bill, and I’m one of them. Looking at the bigger picture, the issue I’ve raised also provides a nice illustration for why we should repeal the 17th amendment.

Comments { 4 }