Tag Archives | States Rights

Federalism and the 10th: The State Reclamation Begins

By on December 14, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Law, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers

The state governments are now beginning in earnest to do something about the encroaching federal government. Way back in 1994 when the “Republican Revolution” was taking place in Congress the Republican Governors Association (RGA) “adopted” a sort of “declaration of independence” for themselves.  From Congress we got the “Contract with America” and from the RGA we saw a resolution that the states will actively fight against the federal government’s encroachment upon states authority.

Underlying the theme of both “movements” was the idea that the federal government was going beyond its constitutional duties and something needed to be done to bring it back in line. While these had good intentions, they fell short like everything else from the government does. People will always fall back to doing what they know and in the case of government; that is trying to gain power over everything.

At least twelve states had passed resolutions demanding that Congress get rid of all the unfunded federal mandates. Many of the other states asked for “mandate-relief” because they could not afford to implement the mandates. Kansas and South Dakota were probably the most vociferous; they were calling for a constitutional convention and wanted an amendment to our Constitution forbidding the federal government making such mandates.

Many states took up the call and passed resolutions asserting states sovereignty. The language of the resolutions was all similar in nature with their call for the federal government to halt its behavior of violating the 10th Amendment.  Walter Williams had noted:

The 10th Amendment movement may be America’s last chance to peacefully get Congress to obey the Constitution. Politicians have seriously underestimated public anger and are blind to the rebellion spreading across the land.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19941222&id=IBtOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=f-wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3154,3716396

For all their wanting, the RGA still fell short and the states dropped the ball. They were right to stand up and be noticed. It was all talk and no action. Unfortunately, over time, history has shown that people will always revert to what they have been taught. This effort slowly fizzled out as the states and federal government once again began colluding with each other.

The federal government can control things one of two ways. They can do it with the point of a gun or the use of the purse. So, while the states flexed their muscles, President Clinton gave them some of what they wanted to help rebuild their autonomy but he insisted on the federal government controlling the funds and their usage. He did this in his speech to the National Governors Association on Jan. 31, 1995, when he told them:

Even though you’ll have more flexibility to solve your problems, you must be held accountable for how you spend the federal money

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD-1995-02-06/html/WCPD-1995-02-06-Pg151-2.htm

Even though that part of our history proved to be faulty, the idea of the 10th Amendment and the force behind it; is not. Today many states are sick and tired of what the federal government is doing and mandating them to do. We are witnessing the “states political revolution” all over again. The difference here and now is that he states are no longer “asking permission”.

It is always easier to “do” and say you are sorry later, then to ask for permission and wait for denial. Apparently many states have learned the lessons of this folly from the 1994/95 fiasco. States are NOT asking the federal government for permission any more. They are enacting their own laws to nullify the federal government’s mandates.

States are finally stepping up the jurisdiction game and putting authority where it belongs. Several states have already passed medical marijuana laws making the drug legal for medical use. Two states (Washington and Colorado) have completely decriminalized marijuana all together.

This is a direct slap in the face of the federal government’s drug war policies. If EVERY state followed Washington and Colorado’s example, what could the federal government do?  Would they build a wall around the entire United States and say that everyone is in jail because of drug use? These actions, where they states work together to accomplish the same goal is exactly what James Madison was talking about when he said they would band together against the federal encroachment.

There is also a growing consensus among the states to nullify things like ObamaCare. Many states have enacted laws against its implementation. Some states, like Texas, even lay fines and penalties against anyone who aides the federal government in getting it implemented within their state.

More work still needs to be done before the correct balance of federalism is restored. As people learn more about Liberty they will insist their states exercise their 10th Amendment rights and hold the federal government accountable. People and state legislatures will need to read and acquire a sound understanding of the Constitution, what it says and why it says it.

Knowing how the Constitution was designed to properly function is vital to the successful 10th Amendment “movement” that Walter Williams was talking about. It should be obvious, to even the most casual observer, that the only way to restore our American federalism, is to know all the inner workings and apply the very principles it was built upon.

Freedom is not free. We, each of us, have an obligation to learn the principles are fore-fathers laid out for us. From there, it is our responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable and force them to abide by those principles. The Constitution cannot protect itself. We the people, MUST, be the ones to do it. If we do not, everything we do to try and get our system back on track will fail in misery.

The present battles, between the states and federal government, to recover federalism throughout the country; goes directly to the principles enshrined within our Constitution. The primary objective of our fore-fathers, when designing the Constitution, was NOT to answer how we run any public policy.

Public policy question and answers were nowhere in their minds. What they set out to do was to define the level where decisions would be made (the vertical plane). They created the Constitution in such a way as to define what they viewed as the federal-state relationships. Exercising the Constitution in any other way was not part of its original design.

In conclusion, it is up to us, we the people, to ensure the 10th Amendment is properly exercised. Failure to do so will ensure the rise of a tyrannical government.

Yours in Liberty

 

Comments { 3 }

Federalism and the 10th: The States’ Great Awakening

By on December 11, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Law, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers

In Part 1 of this series, I explained how our federalism works and how the powers were divided between the states and our national government. The details showed that the states were superior to the federal government on the hierarchy scale and that the 10th amendment protected that position whenever the federal government stepped outside its boundaries.

The Constitution is a great document, but it is nothing more the words on a piece of paper unless those responsible for working within its boundaries are held accountable. The Constitution is absolutely meaningless if the federal government can ignore it and do whatever it wants at any time it wants.

Slowly, of the course of the last century or so, we have witnessed the deterioration of our Constitution. The federal government has stolen power from the states and people on a regular basis. Our rights that are supposed to be guaranteed protection from an encroaching federal government are being dismantled one by one as new laws keep coming out of the federal government.

Members of Congress are vehemently imposing their will upon the states and the people with no regard to the Constitution at all. Perhaps they need to return to school and learn what happened the last time an “imperial” government mandated edicts while ignoring the people. If the federal government continues to treat the states like Britain did the colonies, how could they not expect the “revolution” to happen?

Today we can easily see that our federal government is pushing harder than ever to take on the dominate role in our country’s politics. The servant is attempting to become the master and centralizing power in Washington. The answer to stopping this usurpation lies in the governors and state legislatures. It is within their power to correct this problem.

President Obama and his Administration seem to want to repeat history. They are trying to recreate the New Deal in modern terms. Through the use of Congress, the Fed and the judiciary, they are overstepping their bounds and violating the fiscal and constitutional rights of state and local governments. The imbalance of power in our federalist system has finally reached a tipping point.

When the pain gets large enough, people will do something about it. Apparently, James Madison was correct about the states banding together. While a lot has been taken away, the beginnings of the reclamation process is becoming more evident in our modern times. Several states, although not making compacts with each other, are all moving in the same direction to oppose federal intrusions on their authority.

Perhaps the legal axiom of “silence is acceptance” is being put to use as the states are no longer being silent. That silence has been broken is the first indicator that the pain threshold has been breached. There seems to be a growing movement among the states now to take back the power that is rightfully theirs.  The wheels of insurrection are turning. State and local officials are fighting back. The giant has awakened.

Comments { 9 }

Federalism and the 10th: How It Works

By on December 10, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Government, Law, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers

What we are witnessing all around the country is a political revolution. As time goes by, the revolution will grow huge, into a massive historical event.

The people are beginning to understand what is going on, and are starting to take the necessary steps to reestablish their correct place and boundaries in our federalist system. After so many years of seeing the power usurped, it does my heart good to see steps finally being taken to correct that wrong.

Many times we hear people say that this country is a democracy. That is not true, we are a republic, and we use democracy as a means to pick our representatives in a federalist form of government. Somehow, people seem to conveniently forget that fact. So, what is federalism?

When our founders created the Constitution and established our federal government they did it on two planes, vertically and horizontally. Everyone gets taught the horizontal plane in school where we have the separation of powers between the various branches of government. Unfortunately, they are never taught the vertical plane which is where the whole federalist structure is set in place with a division of power between the national and state governments. Continue Reading →

Comments { 14 }

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

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 →

Comments { 3 }

Name Calling and “Tenther Nullification Nonsense” in Arizona

By on August 18, 2012 in Big Government

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. Continue Reading →

Comments { 4 }

If You Have an Ally, Don’t Go It Alone

By on July 5, 2012 in Federalism, Government, Health Care

Cross posted from the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.

There is a point that I think I’ve been trying to get to for much of the time that I’ve been working with the Tenth Amendment Center.  Unfortunately, I don’t think I’ve done a very good job at getting there.  I’ve written a few articles that skirted past it and danced around it, but I kept missing this particular target.  It’s something that we probably all know, but maybe we don’t all know that we know it.

I got close to this idea it in The Individual and the Tenth, where I talked about the role of the individual in resisting the federal government during the “Whiskey Rebellion”.  Apparently, though, I didn’t really have things clear enough in my own mind at the time, because I only got part way there.  It came closer to the surface some time last year, when I drew up this diagram, intended to depict the proper Constitutional balance of power.

Continue Reading →

Comments { 2 }

SCOTUS and the EPA vs Private Property

By on April 23, 2012 in Big Government, Law

On March 21, TAC reported that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of an Idaho couple who had been petitioning the court system to be allowed to make their case concerning EPA administrative heavy handedness. The post, U.S. Supreme Court: Idaho Couple can take EPA to Court, reported that the couple had been directed by the Environmental Protection Agency to restore their newly acquired home construction plot back to its original state or face stiff fines. The EPA would not allow an appeal, or even a hearing.

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the main powers delegated to the federal government, specifically those of the Legislative Branch. An original understanding makes it clear that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to form a federal agency which can dictate what people can do with their private property. Just as it has no authority to demand the American people purchase something, Washington D.C. has no power to tell us what to do with personal or real property we own.

Utah, Colorado, Nevada and many other western states are neighbored by separate “federal states” which cannot be utilized for their own taxing purposes or to access the natural resources that reside within them. This is due to the fact that the federal government had either grabbed up the land when the state first entered the union, or had purchased it by some means. Regardless of how it was acquired, the federal land is within the state, and the people of that state cannot utilize it, in most cases.

Federal ownership of the land creates no benefit to the state itself. As U.S. Government Property, it is considered a resource of the U.S. Federal Government. In some instances, such as the Smoky Mountains in North Carolina, the area has been deemed A UNESCO World Heritage Site and is “legally protected pursuant to the Law of War, under the Geneva Convention, its Articles, Protocols and Customs, together with other treaties including the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and international law”. Our Congress had to ratify that UN treaty. ”While each World Heritage Site remains part of the legal territory of the state wherein the site is located, UNESCO considers it in the interest of the international community to preserve each site”.

How is that for giving away Sovereignty? Continue Reading →

Comments { 0 }

Wall of Separation: Myth?

By on January 19, 2012 in Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federalism, Founding Principles, History, Originalism

The topic of “Separation of Church and State” is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the political sphere. I’m setting out in this brief commentary to provide some context on the topic, along with the position of a Constitutionalist.

Some facts:

  • The phrase is not contained in the Constitution (although the average person may think it is).
  • The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Roger Williams (of the Danbury Baptists), where Jefferson was borrowing “a wall of Separation” which were words used by Rev. Williams.
  • The purpose and context of the letter was to assure the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would not establish a single denomination of Christianity as the national denomination.
  • The phrase/letter was not about divorcing “church and state” as it is understood or referred to today.

The biggest misunderstanding is not even the concept of the “Separation of Church and State” itself, but a misunderstanding of:

  • federalism
  • the construction of the US Constitution
  • the first 10 Amendments (i.e. the Bill of Rights)

The US Constitution documented the powers/authority delegated to the newly formed federal government (i.e. what the federal government could do). The Bill of Rights documented specifically what the federal government was not allowed to do (i.e. power/authority it didn’t have). Continue Reading →

Comments { 2 }

Virginia Blogger Calls Tenthers “Intellectual Boobs”

By on February 19, 2011 in Commentary, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Originalism, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers, The Opposition

Dan Casey of the Roanoke Times recently embarrassed himself with a juvenile, ad hominem attack on the Tenth Amendment movement titled “The Whole Tenth Amendment Business is Dumb and Crazy.”

While it’s unclear whether Casey actually expected his “arguments” to be taken seriously, it is clear that he cannot make his point through the use of logic or fact. Therefore, Casey’s piece is chock full of historical inaccuracies, mis-characterizations and outright falsehoods regarding the original intent and meaning of the Constitution.

So many, actually, that I cannot list them all here. However, I did respond point by point in a piece of my own to be published soon.

Here is a sample: Continue Reading →

Comments { 2 }

Nationalism, Federalism and the Civil War

By on September 15, 2010 in History, Nullification

I often read blogs, articles, news “reports” and the like – where the commentator refers to the current 10th Amendment Movement with a comment like Hugh Holub in the Tucson Citizen:

“The Civil War was about the right of states to allow slavery. The Union won and slavery was outlawed.”

Obviously, the southern states wanted slavery, but in reading the original “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union” – one would find the ideas of nullification and states rights vs centralization to be the leading issue:

an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. [Emphasis Added]

Or how about Mississippi:

“[the North] has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.”

From this it seems quite obvious to me that the Civil War WAS about nullification and states rights – the northern states were utilizing them and the slavers in the South wanted central power to force their way on the whole country.

Totally opposite of how the mainstream mouthpieces would have us believe.

Comments { 4 }