Jeff Sessions Reminds Us of Our Need for the Tenth Amendment

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his obsession with unconstitutional marijuana prohibition is a glaring reminder of the fact that we either demand restoration of our Ninth & Tenth Amendment authority, rights, and responsibilities no matter reconstructions’ adulteration, or finally dismantle the facade we use to hide our true governance; bureaucratic socialism.

Details

Sports Betting Case Before SCOTUS has Tenth Amendment Ramifications

Last week, the Supreme Court heard testimony on a case that could reinvigorate the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. Surprisingly, it’s all about football and sports betting in the State of New Jersey. The results of Governor of New Jersey v. National Collegiate Athletic Association may have consequences for a range of issues, including gun control, medical/recreational marijuana, and healthcare.

Details

The Ninth and Tenth Amendment: Partners in Federalism for Liberty

American Federalism evolved out of lessons learned through the 18th century as a structure to protect and preserve liberty. But today, bureaucratic socialism controls our governing approach, and calls for a restoration of constitutional federalism are portrayed as ever more radical. Nevertheless, as one of the cornerstones of American federalism, the Tenth Amendment still offers a solution to the problem of overreaching government.

Details

Rediscovering The Tenth Amendment?

It is not often the Tenth Amendment gets mention during a legislative committee meeting. Even less often is it referred to accurately or in a positive way.

So, I was pleasantly surprised to see this occur at a Washington House Education Committee meeting discussing the role of the federal government in education during a presentation by Lee Posey, federal affairs counsel for National Conference of State Legislatures.

Details

Demagogue Chris Matthews’ Latest Cheap Shots at Nullification

It seems like we can’t go one day without another fact-free, historically-illiterate, unhinged rant from MSNBC’s top Obama stooge Chris Matthews.

A recent screed took shots at nullification and featured all of the usual absurdities, tying it in with racists and confederates. Desperate to protect his lord and savior Obama during a time that his presidency is plagued with scandal and incompetency, he comes out with the all-too-familiar canard that anyone pushing back against his agenda is a ‘racist.’

Details

Surprise: Law Professor Misinterprets Supremacy Clause

Have you ever read an article that you were not sure what stance the author takes on the subject but presents both sides of the argument at once? I had the distinguished experience recently when I was reading the article titled “Sheriffs, State Lawmakers Push Back on Gun Control” on the Newsmax website (see: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gun-Control-Pushback/2013/01/17/id/471825). It was a little confusing until I got about half way through it and read a quote by Sam Kamin.

Sam is a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. One would think that if someone was a law professor that they would actually know and understand the law. Or in this case, a constitutional law professor – who should then know and understand the constitution. It is highly unfortunate when people like Sam misspeak about a subject. Their title gives them some credibility so people think what they say is true because they are supposedly an “expert”. But, when they make a mistake it is still a mistake.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Clause 2 reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sam makes the comment that state legislatures can pass any laws they want but that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes such actions unconstitutional. He further states that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme. Nothing could be farther from the truth. His blanket statement implies that the state laws are not necessary and state governments are not necessary because the federal government and its laws are supreme.

Details