On Independence Day weekend just a couple months ago, I was reading Tom Woods’ new book Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. As I was reading through the excellent book, I had a realization: if the subject matter was to have any impact on our current political landscape, it needs to get into the hands of the state legislators who can immediately do something about it.
Thus, the Utah Nullification Project was born.
In 2005, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the “Real-ID Act” – which created national standards for driver’s license and identification cards. Opponents across the political spectrum have been resisting it for various reasons – it’s a privacy risk, is yet another unfunded mandate, and most importantly, the exercise of such federal power is not authorized by the constitution.
Starting in early 2007, states began passing both non-binding resolutions opposing the law, and binding legislation which nullified the act within the state borders. The latest to join resistance? Utah, and the current tally is 25.
House Bill 325 (HB325) has been signed by Governor Gary Herbert, and addresses the most glaring problems with the Real ID Act:
The Legislature finds that the United States Congress’ enactment of the REAL ID Act into law:
(a) is inimical to the security and well-being of the people of this state;
(b) will cause unneeded expense and inconvenience to the people of this state; and
(c) was adopted in violation of the principles of federalism contained in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Utah legislature passed House Resolution 4 (HR4) in 2009, which was a non-binding resolution making clear that the legislature opposed the law. Supporters of HB234 see it as a logical follow-up to the resolution passed last year.
The bill prohibits the State from complying with the law:
(3) (a) The state may not participate in the implementation of the REAL ID Act.
(b) The division:
(i) may not implement the provisions of the REAL ID Act; and
(ii) shall report to the governor any attempt by an agency or an agent of the United States Department of Homeland Security to secure the implementation of the REAL ID Act.
States were originally given until May 2008 to comply with the law, but widespread resistance resulted in the Federal Government changing that deadline not once, not twice, but three times.
“Trouble” – that’s what advocates of centralized government say about the law that has been effectively nullified by massive State-level resistance.
When more than two dozen states refuse to comply with yet another unfunded mandate from D.C. – that mandate may sit on the books, but it’s as good as repealed, even without going to the federal courts to oppose it.
And, while the centralizers would certainly like to see their plans revived – either in Real ID itself, or in its latest incarnation, TWIC – the bottom line remains the same…nullification works.
CLICK HERE – to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Real ID nullification tracking page.
An effort seen as fundamental to funding of public education was taken to the next level by Gov. Gary Herbert. Saturday he signed the legislation authorizing Utah to use eminent domain to seize federal lands. In an update the Wall Street Journal has written a solid article on the action which sets the pace for other states to follow and legal battles ahead.
Take some time to read the article. Also, don’t forget to thank Gov. Herbert and the legislators who helped move Utah toward fundamental sovereignty under the 10th Amendment duties of all states.
Governor Gary Herbert has made Utah the third state to pass the “Health Care Freedom Act” into law. House Bill 67 (HB67) was introduced by Rep. Carl Wimmer and passed the House and Senate by votes of 53-20 and 22-7, respectively.
The bill “prohibits a state agency or department from implementing federal health care reform passed by the United States Congress after March 1, 2010, unless a state agency reports to the Legislature regarding costs and impact on state reform efforts.” It authorizes the state legislature to specifically approve or deny implementation of federal health care legislation.
In short, it requires the state “to opt out of federal reform when the state determines that opting out is in the best interest of the citizens of the state.”
Governor Otter of Idaho signed similar legislation last week, and issued the following statement:
“Congress and the White House are working out their scheme for pushing through a healthcare ‘reform’ bill that has more pages than the U.S. Constitution has words. I guarantee you that not a single member of the House or Senate has a complete understanding of that legislation any more than they understood all the implications of the USA PATRIOT Act back in 2001,” Governor Otter said. “What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won’t be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control.”
Yesterday, Governor McDonnell signed the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, which passed the legislature there last month.
More than 2 dozen other states are considering similar legislation or state constitutional amendments to do the same. Many legislators and governors are calling for a federal lawsuit to affirm the principles of the state laws. But some constitutional scholars, including famed legal theorist Randy Barnett, have indicated that decades of precedent from the supreme court makes such legal challenges difficult, at best.
But that doesn’t mean that the court is right. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, warned us that if the federal government ever were to become the sole and final arbiter of the extent of its own powers, those powers would never remain limited – thus, the reason they advocated for nullification and interposition in those resolutions.
The Tenth Amendment Center has released the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, which directly nullifies the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” on a state level. Click here to learn more.
CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s health care freedom act tracking page
Yesterday there was an article in the Desert News about this year’s legislative session, Carl Wimmer, and the Patrick Henry Caucus has some fair insights. There is even a comment by the House Minority Assistant Whip (can these titles of nobility get any more stretched?) Carol Moss (D – Holladay) that was right on the mark. According to the article she said, ”The reality is, Utah is very dependent on federal funding.”
The reality is we are too dependent on federal dollars and we must stop this dependency if the legislation or resolutions ever are to mean anything. This is the part of the 10th Amendment equation most Utah citizens are not ready for. As Freedom Coach Gary Alder reminds us, if we are teenagers demanding to be treated like adults we better be ready to act like an adult just in case. The federal dollars are a problem and we must stop the dependency but that is an entirely different article and education series.
In reading the article and the comments today it was apparent most of our fellow citizens think Rep. Wimmer and the Patrick Henry Caucus are the problem, not the fact we have failed to stop the federal usurpation decades ago. One restates a sentiment I have read too often. Posting under the name ‘Thanks Rep Wimmer’ the commenter stated, “Why don’t you far right wingers go start a new country where you can be as whacky as you want to be…”
The Tenth Amendment movement sweeping across the nation has made its way to the Beehive State. The Utah-Made Firearm Act states that all firearms, firearm accessories, and “ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state to be used or sold within the state [of Utah] is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.” The bill, SB11, was signed by Utah Governor Herbert Cary on February 26 after passing through the state legislature in a near-party line vote.
SB11 is part of a series of similiar Firearms Freedom Acts (FFA) that have also been passed in Montana and Tennessee and introduced in other states. The FFA openly challenges the federal contention that it has the authority to regulate firearms under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, by declaring that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.
Utah State Senator Margaret Dayton explained the motivation behind SB11 and other 10th Amendment legislation. “The federal overreach is out of control…. That tyrannical overreach is what we’re trying to stop with this bill … [and the passage of SB11] illustrates the universal yearning for freedom and shows the people still feel the spark that inspired our ancestors at Lexington and Valley Forge. My hope is that the march toward tyranny can be turned back with our votes.”
Opponents of the bill and similar state sovereignty legislation argue that such legislation would never be found to be constitutional by federal courts. According to retired University of Utah law professor John Flynn, “It would really be quite ridiculous of the [Supreme Court] to even take a case like this…. You’d have huge impact across the federal code.” Flynn considers SB11 and similar legislation “asinine” because they ignore Supreme Court precedent that interprets the interstate commerce clause into an almost unlimited grant of regulatory power to Congress.
Sen. Howard Stephenson introduced the State Sovereignty and Tenth Amendment Resolution, SJR-6, on January 12th. It was created in the spring of 2009 by citizens for citizens. The Utah 9.12 States’ Rights Coalition, with the guidance of Larry Jensen (Utah Grassroots Alliance Coordinator), Chris Strause and many others, formed the message. After looking for someone to support it and present it Larry finally found Sen. Stephenson willing to tackle this critical resolution before it was the ‘popular’ thing to do.
Many of you across this state have lent your time, energy, and support for this resolution since. Many alligned organizations now understand why this resolution is important. Your hard work helped get the resolution through the Utah Senate and House. It is now up to Gov. Herbert to sign it and we need your support once again to show our Utah Governor we support him in standing for the sanity of the U.S. Constitution, the Utah Constitution, and the separation of powers, with the built in checks and balance duty each state is required to exercise. Gov. Herbert has proven to be a friend, just as many in the Utah House and Senate are proving to be.
Some will say a resolution is a waste of time and has no ‘teeth’ so why bother? There are two key things to keep in mind with this resolution. It was written to make a statement, yes, but more importantly to also educate the citizens and our representatives. Also, those who represent their support for this resolution and then fail to support legislation with teeth will be easy to identify as this election year we move to elect local and state representatives who will uphold their Oath of Office.
Sen. Margaret Dayton (R-Orem) introduced SB-11, Utah State-Made Firearms Protection Act on January 25th, 2010. By February 16th the legislative debates were over and the bill was passed by both houses and sent to Gov. Gary Herbert for his signature. After 10 days of public debate, with both sides of the issue encouraging action Gov. Herbert signed this fundamental legislation into law.
In a written statement Gov. Herbert explained his reasoning. “There are times when the state needs to push back against continued encroachment from the federal government. Sending the message that we will stand up for a proper balance between the state and federal government is a good thing.” Opponents will spend the next several days declaring their stance and criticizing his decision. At the same time the federal government will realize Utah has joined with Montana and Tennessee as states serious about the need for our federalist republic to be restored.
Our federal government is to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. The improper precedents and usurpations under the federal judicial rulings surrounding Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (known as the Commerce Clause) are not supreme simply due to the fact they are outside the original meaning. By signing SB-11 Gov. Herbert places Utah in a position of proper authority while pressing the issue of supremacy back into the courts. As more states join this courageous move governing can begin the necessary restoration that will ultimately lead to the protection of people’s rights and responsibility.
Tea partiers take note: at the forefront of any effort to reduce the size of the federal government should be the devolvement of federal programs to the states. Achieving this may seem like mission impossible given the states’ addiction to federal money. However, there are signs that the idea of returning the relationship between the federal government and the states to that which the Founders prescribed is starting to gain some currency.
On Friday, the president of the Utah Senate and the speaker of the Utah House of Representatives penned an op-ed in the Washington Post calling for the federal government to begin the devolution process. The authors want the states to have the right to opt out of federal programs and allow the states to keep the taxes their residents send to Washington to fund them. The states would then be free to fund and manage the programs as they see fit.
The authors call their idea a “modest experiment,” and indeed, it is hardly radical. The 10th amendment to the Constitution is clear:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
From the op-ed:
Let’s select a few programs — say, education, transportation and Medicaid — that are managed mostly by Utah’s government, but with significant federal dollars and a plethora of onerous federal interventions and regulations.
Let Utah take over these programs entirely. But let us keep in our state the portion of federal taxes Utah residents pay for these programs. The amount would not be difficult to determine. Rather than send this money through the federal bureaucracy, we would retain it and would take full responsibility for education, transportation and Medicaid — minus all federal oversight and regulation.
Such a notion terrifies proponents of big government because state budgets are generally constrained by balanced budget requirements, debt inhibitions, and the inability to print money. States are also more limited in how much they can abuse taxpayers for the simple reason that citizens can move to a friendlier environment. Indeed, one of the beautiful aspects of returning to fiscal federalism is that it would strengthen this competition that $600+ billion in annual federal subsidies has somewhat neutered.
See this essay for more on fiscal federalism and this Cato Policy Analysis on the problems with federal subsidies to state and local governments.
Update: A C@L reader pointed me to this resolution introduced by Michigan state representative Paul Opsommer, which calls on the federal government to allow the states to opt out of federal highway programs funded by the federal gas tax. The states would be free to fund their own roads with their own gas tax revenues instead of sending money to Washington where its then redistributed back to the states according to Congress’s politicized wishes. As the resolution notes, the federal government uses the leverage it has over transportation spending to force the states to enact policies that they don’t want.
NOTE: Originally posted at Cato-at-Liberty.org
Introduced in the Utah Legislature is House Bill 234 (HB234), which if passed, would prohibit the state from “participating in the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005.”
Real ID created national standards for driver’s license and identification cards and opponents have been resisting it for various reasons – it’s a privacy risk, forces states to bear the financial burden, and is not authorized by the constitution.
HB234 addresses much of this:
The Legislature finds that the United States Congress’ enactment of the REAL ID Act into law:
(a) is inimical to the security and well-being of the people of this state;
(b) will cause unneeded expense and inconvenience to the people of this state; and
(c) was adopted in violation of the principles of federalism contained in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Utah legislature passed House Resolution 4 (HR4) in 2009, which was a non-binding resolution making clear that the legislature opposed the law. Supporters of HB234 see it as a logical follow-up to the resolution passed last year.
States were originally given until May 2008 to comply with the law, but widespread resistance resulted in the Federal Government changing that deadline not once, not twice, but three times.
More than two dozen states have passed resolutions or binding laws opposing the act, rendering the Bush-era law nearly null and void in practice. Bottom line? Nullification works.
CLICK HERE – to view all current Real ID nullification legislation
Tenther Radio Archives© 2013 Tenth Amendment Center Blog. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress. Designed by 
