Tenth Amendment Center: Constitutional Conversation

Tenth Amendment Center
  • 4.7 (31)
  • NEWS

Concordia res Parvae Crescunt

  1. 05/02/2013

    Six Steps You can Take To Nullify Now

    A call to action with a special emphasis for libertarians Want to stop the sociopaths in Washington DC? Ron Paul told you how.  Judge Napolitano is on board.  Tom Woods provides intellectual firepower to back it up. And today, I’ll share six steps to get you started. Obviously, it will take some work.  But what should a liberty lover actually do? March on DC? Lobby Congress? Support a campaign in the 2016 presidential election? Answer: No. No. And, no. RON PAUL’S ADVICE Ron Paul said nullification would “reverse the trend and stop the usurpation of all the powers and privileges from the states to the federal government.” The game-plan is right in front of you. It’s nullification. That bears repeating: if you want to stop federal thugs, Ron Paul advises you to nullify. I can’t think of a stronger endorsement for libertarians than this powerful statement from the man who brought the principles of liberty to the mainstream. Think about it.  Nullification isn’t just an interesting theory or some historical oddity for study.  It’s a method Ron Paul himself endorsed as a path to “stop the usurpation of power.”  That’s serious business, and a call for you to take action. DEFINITIONS What IS nullification?  In order to share a plan of action, you must first understand what nullification is.  When Thomas Jefferson called it the “rightful remedy,” he didn’t specifically define it. Dictionaries from that time offer a pretty broad definition. Nullify: To annul; to make void. Dictionary.com is far more specific.  Nullification: “the failure or refusal of a U.S. state to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, especially on Constitutional grounds.” Personally, I find that definition far too narrow. Tom Woods’ indispensable LibertyClassroom.com says nullification happens when states “refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.”  Woods also points out that outright resistance can be part of the process too. The Tenth Amendment Center takes a “big tent” view when defining nullification: “Any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null and void, or unenforceable within a particular area.” NULLIFICATION: IN PRACTICE Nullification is more about the end result than the method.  There are five main paths. 1. “Legalized” public defiance.  State laws allowing what the feds have banned can accomplish nullification.  Such laws encourage people on the margins to join in with others already defying the federal act. State marijuana laws fit into this category. In a conversation with Judge Napolitano, Ron Paul confirmed state marijuana laws are an act of nullification.   In his recent Mises Institute article, Mark Thornton agreed. While such laws don’t create physical barriers blocking DC from enforcing their criminal acts, time and increasing numbers create a situation the feds can no longer stop or control. 2. State, local and individual noncompliance. By 1928,28 states stopped funding alcohol prohibition enforcement and local police only sporadically enforced the law. In a 1925 address to Congress, Maryland’s Senator Brucestated, “national prohibition went into legal effect upward of six years ago, but it can be truly said that, except to a highly qualified extent, it has never gone into practical effect at all.”  There are similar actions happening today.  Washington State and Colorado will stop enforcing marijuana prohibition.  Andstates and local communities are considering bills refusing cooperation with NDAA “indefinite detention” provisions or gun control measures. Judge Napolitano recently observed how powerful noncompliance like this can be.  He noted that the federal government simply doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all its laws.  Therefore, noncompliance can make federal laws “nearly impossible to enforce.” Ron Paul strongly supports individual noncompliance: “Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero — because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience, nonviolence.” 3. State and local interposition.  State agents “stand between” you and the federal government to protect your rights.  In general, this includes criminal charges for federal agents attempting to enforce a nullified “law.”  Inresponse to the fugitive slave act of 1850, a number of states did just that and were quite effective. Two bonus categories: Jury nullification.  A jury votes to acquit, even if a “law” was broken. Individual nullification.  Every time you break a so-called “law” and get away with it, you nullify. TAKE ACTION NOW Here are some steps that you can start taking now.  Not after the next election, and not next year.  Not next month or next week.  Today, not tomorrow.  Right now.  1.  Forget that the 202 area code exists.   If you’ve spent days calling DC to support or oppose this or that, you’ve wasted your time.  To advance liberty, forget DC – that pit of criminals. You will never, ever accomplish your goals there.  Don’t call anyone there.  Don’t send letters to reps or senators.  Don’t support campaigns, or donate money to them. Ever. 2.  Support all nullification bills.  Any piece of state or local legislation pushing back on federal power, whether refusing compliance with so-called federal “laws,” or frustrating or preventing enforcement, is a good thing.   As Thornton wrote on Mises.org, “This is important, because, if thanks to nullification, governments have to obtain acceptance, or at least acquiescence from subsidiary governments, rather than just imposing their dictates on them, they are more likely to act in a less threatening and harmful manner.” 3.  Get on a jury.   As Don Doig and Stewart Rhodes wrote, “Serving on a jury should be viewed as a form of liberty guerrilla warfare in the current ‘soft’ or cold war between the forces of liberty and the forces of tyranny.”  Vote to acquit! 4.  Vote with your Money.  Market demand can overpower even the strongest government.  Hundreds of marijuana shops flat-out defying federal power in one city alone proves it.  The feds may rough people up from time to time, but they’re fighting a losing battle.   As much as you can, support businesses, organizations and individuals willing to defy government power.  Every dollar you spend helps grow the market and makes it stronger. 5.  Just say YES!  If they ask you to turn in your firearm, will you?  When it comes time to comply with mandated insurance coverage, will you be obedient?  Will DEA bans prevent you from planting hemp?  Will you continue to comply with legal tender laws on gold and silver?  Will you fight that next war because “it’s your duty?” A “No!” to tyrants is a “Yes” to liberty. ONE FINAL STEP Be patient. Criminal politicians have proven over decades that taking one small step at a time is extremely effective. Liberty will not win in one year, one legislative session, or with one action.  It will take time and relentless action. I agree with Murray Rothbard’s warning against “falling prey” to “short-run optimism”: For short-run optimism, being unrealistic, leads straightway to disillusion and then to long-run pessimism. Become a member and support the TAC! I urge you to heed Rothbard’s advice: For the libertarian, the main task of the present epoch is to cast off his needless and debilitating pessimism, to set his sights on long-run victory and to set about the road to its attainment. Our long-run victory will come one step at a time. The path is before us.  Nullify, nullify, and nullify! The post Six Steps You can Take To Nullify Now appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

    12 min

  2. 04/25/2013

    MSNBC: Where it’s Always Opposite Day

    I get it.  I really do.  But that doesn’t mean I’m going to ignore it. It seems obvious to me that in order to hold a place of prominence at MSNBC you either need to be a partisan hack, or totally clueless of history. Probably both. So when MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show producer Steve Benen shares his opinion, it’s usually just best to turn a blind eye to his idiocy. But, sometimes it’s important to pay attention to what they say because it can actually give us insight on just what we should do for liberty.  In fact, if you believe in the right to keep and bear arms and wonder what to do to support that right, you’ll get all the advice you need in Steve’s recent Maddow Blog article, “Pointless Nullification in Kansas.” Surprised?  Read on.  It’s true. BACKSTORY  This month, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed into law the “Second Amendment Protection Act,” a bill that reasserts the state’s role in protecting the right to keep and bear arms of those living there.   The bill reads, in part: “Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.” In conjunction with the above clause, the bill defines what is meant by “the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” and that it isn’t based off a decision by the Supreme Court. The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861. By definition, state and local agents cannot enforce any acts or actions that are “null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.”  Based off this text, the state of Kansas now cannot participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood when Kansas became a state in 1861. I happen to think such a state law is a big deal.   In Steve’s blog “report” on the issue, he quoted me as saying that this bill is “potentially the most important state level bill passed in modern American history.” He didn’t take too kindly to that opinion, though, and spent some time talking about my “hyperbole” and the “cause for alarm” over the fact that Brownback signed this bill into law. In fact, Steve spent quite a bit of time explaining how such an act is a waste of time.  He even said the law doesn’t make “any sense at all.” SENSE  So here’s some sense for our propagandist.  According to Steve, the courts, and the court only, determine what the constitution actually means.  But that flies in the face of what James Madison had to say.  You know Madison, the guy referred to as the “Father of the Constitution.”   In his own words: “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” No tribunal above the authority of the states?  Hmmmm.  That doesn’t jive with Steve’s version. In Federalist #46, Madison also told us how to deal with things that the States determined were unconstitutional.  He wrote: “Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” Steve Benen’s Constitution:  The states have no role in determining Constitution.  If they don’t like a federal law, they can “challenge the law in the courts.”  In other words, they should ask a branch of the federal government to limit the power of the federal government. Yeah, OK.  Right.  We’ll get right on that, Steve. James Madison’s Constitution:  The states have “no tribunal above their authority” to determine when the Constitution has been violated.  That includes the “supreme court” tribunal.  And, when states determine the Constitution has been violated, they should use “legislative devices” to create “very serious impediments” and even pass laws that would be a “refusal to cooperate” with agents of the federal government. In fact, that’s just what Brownback signed into law.  The Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act follows Madison’s advice.  It’s a state legislative device which not only codifies into state law that virtually any and every federal “act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation” regarding your right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional, it also bans their enforcement by referring to them as “unenforceable.” ADVICE Steve spent time and energy, plus the space on Maddow’s MSNBC website, to convince you that the Kansas law is “pointless.”  If it were so pointless, he wouldn’t be wasting time on it.  Period.  So if you support the Second Amendment, this should serve as a serious call to action. When Steve, Rachel, or anyone else at MSNBC wants you to stay away from doing something to protect the right to keep and bear arms that James Madison advised, you should take that as a big, green light to double-down and push that direction even harder. Become a member and support the TAC! As Judge Andrew Napolitano said recently, such widespread noncompliance in the states will make federal gun control laws “nearly impossible to enforce.” (video here) Madison and Judge Nap are good enough for me.  But it’s even more important to recognize that we should treat everything from MSNBC as if it’s opposite day.  When they tell you it’s a waste of time, you know it’s already having effect.  And you know it’s going to work. So get out there and nullify gun control.  Support the right to keep and bear arms, and convince your state, county, city, or town to pass the Second Amendment Preservation Act today. They don’t want us doing this.  We’re doing it anyway. The post MSNBC: Where it’s Always Opposite Day appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

    11 min

  3. 04/18/2013

    Nullification and Pie

    Me. With pie. I like pie. Strike that.  I absolutely love pie.  I consider “bad pie” to be an oxymoron.  But, anytime I’ve ever tried to eat an entire pie in one sitting (yes, this has happened more than once), I’ve had some negative results. Because of this, I’ll generally just eat a single slice.  Ok, two.  Maybe three.  But that’s pushing it.  Sometimes, if I’m at my favorite pie shop, I’ll get an extra one.  For later. When working for liberty, I find myself taking the same approach.  I love the whole pie of liberty.  If I could have it all at once, I’d definitely go for it.  Generally, though, I’ve found that taking it once piece at a time tends to be a far more successful approach, one that’s likely to be more long-lasting. REVERSING THE TREND When I founded the Tenth Amendment Center back in 2006, I never even conceived of much more than a little bite.  What originally started out as a single-person blog with the goals of reaching just one person with each post has grown into a national movement. Lately, many liberty-oriented political activists and organizations have started getting more and more involved in the nullification movement.  Certainly, Ron Paul has had some influence on this, as many people involved in his grassroots political effort watched him on the campaign trail speak favorably of nullification.  And even quite strongly in favor during a debate. When Ron Paul says that nullification would “reverse the trend and stop the usurpation of all the powers and privileges from the states to the federal government,” I would suspect that a libertarian, political activist or not, would likely take notice. I can’t think of a stronger plea for libertarians to put their energy into nullification than that statement from the man who brought the principles of liberty to the mainstream. Think about that.  Nullification isn’t just an interesting idea, it’s a method that Ron Paul has endorsed as a method to “stop the usurpation of power.”  That’s serious business. DEFINITIONS But that leaves a question.  What IS nullification?  When Thomas Jefferson called it the rightful remedy, he didn’t define it.  And if you were to look at a dictionary from that time, you’d get a pretty broad definition for nullify: To annul; to make void. On the word nullification, Dictionary.com is far more specific.  The word is defined as “the failure or refusal of a U.S. state to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, especially on Constitutional grounds.” Personally, I think that definition is far too narrow. Tom Woods’ indispensable LibertyClassroom.com informs us that nullification is when states refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law, but he also points out that outright resistance can be a part of the process too. At the Tenth Amendment Center, we’re very “big tent” in our thinking about what nullification is.  We’ve defined it like this: “Any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null and void, or unenforceable within a particular area.” NULLIFICATION: IN PRACTICE In essence, the goal of nullification is to stop a particular act from taking effect.  That means nullification can take many forms.  These are what I see as the main categories: 1. Authorized public defiance.  State medical marijuana laws fit in this category.  The laws authorize people to use a plant that’s illegal to the feds.  Licenses are generally issued by the state to operate those businesses.  On their own, state and local police don’t harass people following those laws, but do assist the feds when called upon for enforcement. Over time, even with that “cooperation” happening, the effects become greater. In Los Angeles alone, for example, there are currently over 1000 marijuana stores in operation today.   A few get busted every month, most open back up within 24 hours, but 98% or greater are never even bothered. 2. State and local noncompliance.  By 1928, 28 states had stopped funding for alcohol prohibition enforcement and local police were sporadic in their enforcement efforts. In a 1925 address to Congress, Maryland’s Senator Bruce stated, “national prohibition went into legal effect upward of six years ago, but it can be truly said that, except to a highly qualified extent, it has never gone into practical effect at all.”  Similar actions are being taken today.  Washington State and Colorado will be stopping enforcement on marijuana prohibition.  And states and local communities are considering bills to refuse cooperation with the “indefinite detention” provisions of the NDAA, or federal gun control measures. 3. State and local interposition.  Agents of the state would “stand between” you and the federal government to protect you from violations of your rights.  In general, this would include criminal charges for federal agents attempting to enforce a law being nullified.  In response to the fugitive slave act of 1850, a number of states passed laws to do just that.  They were quite effective too. And two bonus categories: Jury nullification.  This is when a jury prevents a conviction even if a “law” was broken Individual nullification.  Every time you speed on a highway without punishment is a good example.  The more widespread the individual nullification actions, the harder that enforcement will become, potentially encouraging more individuals to do the same. MISINFORMED Oddly enough, lately some libertarians who are grassroots leaders have been making the claim that calling on states to arrest federal agents is the only act that qualifies as nullification.  They attack the Tenth Amendment Center like we’re some kind of neo-con sham organization, telling their supporters that supporting other forms of nullification is a fake, or “political cover for politicians.” Or, they claim that anything but an attempt to slap federal agents with criminal charges is “watered down”  or “meaningless.” One group has gone so far as to publicly state they will actually oppose anything requiring noncompliance and “fight to keep it from being signed into law.” GOOD AND EFFECTIVE Ron Paul seems to be a big supporter of noncompliance.  In 2008, he said the following: “Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero — because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience, nonviolence.” I will never understand why anyone who actively campaigned for a man who considered Rosa Parks a hero would view saying “NO!” as political cover, meaningless, or something to oppose.  But I digress. Ron Paul has also pointed out that state marijuana laws are, in fact, an act of nullification.  But they don’t even rise to the level of noncompliance.  And California has never threatened to arrest federal agents.  But it’s still nullification. And it’s not just Ron Paul.  Judge Andrew Napolitano recently made the observation that the federal government simply doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all its laws.  And because of this, noncompliance has the ability to make federal laws “nearly impossible to enforce.” BACK TO PIE Holding the view that the only way to nullify is via option 3 is not just incorrect, it’s an attempt to eat an entire pie in one sitting.   In California in 1996, no one would’ve gone for that option (and they still aren’t). If they hadn’t taken option 1 as a step forward – a piece of pie – Ron Paul may not have been talking about that as nullification with Judge Nap in 2011. I understand that people who value and love liberty are pretty sick and tired of it being under constant attack.    What sane person wouldn’t be? But opponents of liberty have spent decades upon decades proving that taking one piece at a time is an extremely effective method.  I sure would love to pig out on an entire banana cream pie of liberty in one sitting, but I can guarantee you that’s not going to happen.  And on top of it, I agree with Murray Rothbard who warned against “falling prey” to such “short-run optimism”:  For short-run optimism, being unrealistic, leads straightway to disillusion and then to long-run pessimism. Become a member and support the TAC! Rothbard also offered advice: For the libertarian, the main task of the present epoch is to cast off his needless and debilitating pessimism, to set his sights on long-run victory and to set about the road to its attainment. In the end, nullification really comes from the individual who gains courage as the movement expands, and defies the government in more and more ways over time.  Mass noncompliance renders federal laws toothless. I believe our long-run victory will come one individual and one delicious piece of pie at a time. The post Nullification and Pie appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

    14 min

  4. 03/28/2013

    The Power of No

    Rosa Parks demonstrated the power of, “No.” Most Americans know her story. Parks was riding the Cleveland Avenue bus home from work in Montgomery, Alabama on Dec. 1, 1955, when the white only seats in the front filled with passengers. Bus driver James Blake moved the “colored” section sign behind the row Parks was sitting in and demanded that she and the three other black passengers move to seats in the rear of the bus to accommodate the white riders. Parks later said, “When that white driver stepped back toward us, when he waved his hand and ordered us up and out of our seats, I felt a determination cover my body like a quilt on a winter night.” The three other people in the row complied. Rosa Parks did not. “When he saw me still sitting, he asked if I was going to stand up, and I said, ‘No, I’m not.’ And he said, ‘Well, if you don’t stand up, I’m going to have to call the police and have you arrested.’ I said, ‘You may do that,’” Parks recalled in a 1987 PBS documentary on the Civil Rights movement. Notice what Parks did not do. She did not punch the bus driver in the face. She did not pull a gun and start firing away at the police officers when they showed up to arrest her. Her actions had no “teeth.” She just said, “No.” In fact, she was the one bitten. Police arrested Parks and she spent a day in jail. She was tried four days later and convicted of disorderly conduct. The judge fined her $10 and $4 in court costs. She also lost her job as a seamstress at a local department store. But Parks’ actions that day sparked the Montgomery bus boycott and ignited the civil rights movement. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. rose to prominence during the boycott, and when it was all said and done, America was a different place. As the King Institute at Stanford University points out, “The bus boycott demonstrated the potential for nonviolent mass protest to successfully challenge racial segregation and served as an example for other southern campaigns that followed.” Jim Crow died because one woman had the guts to say, “No.” Would anybody argue that Parks’ actions lacked courage or effect simply because they didn’t have “teeth?” Certainly not! Yet we get this argument all the time at the Tenth Amendment Center when we support noncompliance bills lacking criminal penalties for federal agents. As anybody who has stood in an arctic wind knows, things without teeth can still bite. A simple, “No” carries great power. As Parks demonstrated, we don’t have to swing our fists, or lock up federal agents, to bring about sweeping changes. Simply refusing to comply can be a complete game-changer. We need only look at the growing movement to nullify federal marijuana prohibition at the state level to see the truth. According to the feds, it was illegal when California voters approved its medical marijuana program in 1996. They did it anyway. Californians looked the feds in the eyes and said, “No. We will not follow your law.” The Supreme Court unsurprisingly affirmed federal power to regulate a plant grown in somebody’s back yard for pain relief in the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich decision. Did the people of California shut down their medical marijuana programs because the Supreme Court upheld the unconstitutional federal act? Nope. They looked the black-robed federal employees in the eye and said, “No, we don’t really care about your opinion.” Get the new book today! A funny thing happened over the years. Other states jumped on board, said, “No,” to federal marijuana laws, and started their own medical marijuana programs. Eighteen states to be exact, with more expected to join the ranks this year. The people of Washington and Colorado took things to the next level last November. Voters approved legalization of weed across the board. The people said, “No, federal overlords. We will not comply with your so-called law.” The feds continue to bluster and push back. They come in and raid dispensaries and threaten large-scale marijuana growers. But the issue continues to slip away from the federal government. It simply can’t force a large number of states to comply when the people don’t want to. For all practical purposes, we are witnessing the nullification of federal marijuana ‘laws.’ These state level marijuana acts don’t carry penalties at all. Not for the feds. Not for state agents. They feature no enforcement measures. They bare no teeth. State marijuana bills simply set up a mechanism of noncompliance. And they work. Rosa Parks proved it. “No” can change the world. The post The Power of No appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

    9 min

  5. 03/21/2013

    The Political Party Hangover

    Last week, a Maryland House committee voted to support federal kidnapping within the borders of the Old Line State. OK – Maryland lawmakers didn’t exactly grant direct support for indefinite detention without due process, but they did refuse to pass a bill that would have blocked the state of Maryland from assisting or providing material support to federal attempts to throw a black bag over somebody’s head and drag them off into the night. In essence, those voting down the Maryland Liberty Preservation Act of 2013 tacitly agreed that the federal government has such power, and furthermore, they have no problem with agents of the Maryland government helping the feds out. So yes, when you boil it all down, they voted to support federal kidnapping. Not surprisingly, the vote went along party lines. Democrats in the Maryland Health and Government Operations Committee marched in lockstep to block Republicans’ attempt to nullify federal indefinite detention provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Act. You read that right. Democrats – the party of the “Peace President” – support federal kidnapping in Maryland. In some ways, the election of Barack Obama turned the political world on its head. It put a vibrant anti-war movement to sleep and turned some of the most vocal critics of President George W. Bush into cheerleaders for his policies. The party that railed against torture and the Patriot Act now gleefully embrace indefinite detention without due process and execution by drone. Oh, and by the way, the Patriot Act is cool now too! Nothing to worry about. Their guy is in charge. Of course, the Democrats don’t stand alone in their hypocrisy. Do you really think we would still find robust Republican support for blocking indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA if Mitt Romney had won in November? In fact, we still see vestiges of Republican love for the security state in the withered forms of Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham. While the Republican rank-and-file swooned over Rand Paul’s filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination to head up the CIA, McCain and Graham both lobbed rhetorical grenades at the senator from Kentucky. Perhaps they recognize that they will certainly one day regain the helm, and they don’t want to worry about any future constraints on their Orwellian vision of a well-entrenched police state.  You have to at least give these old stalwarts credit for their commitment to principle – however awful that principle might be. But, for the most part, Republicans played cheerleader for Paul, while Democrats fell silent, or in some cases vocally criticized his stand against death-by-drone. The momentum of Paul’s 12-plus hour speech on the Senate floor even propelled him to a CPAC straw poll victory. But while those of us battling for civil liberties here in the good-ole US of A would like to think Paul’s filibuster woke up the Republican Party at large to the danger posed by big-government programs designed to make us more “secure,” we know the sad truth. Save a few principled members of the GOP, Paul’s support stems from fear and hatred of the current president, not a commitment to the Constitution. Once the elephants march their guy back into the White House, and they surely will at some point in the future, the old order we all know will reestablish itself. The lefties will once again fill the streets protesting whatever foreign adventure the powers-that-be concoct. Democrats will once again vilify the president as a war-monger and shredder of the Constitution. And the right’s support for blocking indefinite detention and drones will likely fade away like an old photograph in the sun. We’ve read from this same script for years. And it demonstrates a chilling fact. Most Americans devote themselves not to a set of principles, not to the Constitution, but to their political party. In America, red versus blue drives the political process. If it hurts the blue team, the read team will embrace it. If it can damage the reds, the blues jump on board. What we stood for this week will shift 180 degrees if some party boss decides it will create an advantage over the bad-guys. We’re anti-war until our guy starts the war. We stand for civil liberties until walking over them scores some points in the press. We’re for kill lists until we stand against them. Political pragmatism and party politics trump principle, and when it’s all said and done, Americans always end up with less freedom and less liberty, while both political parties consolidate power. After all, we need our party to rescue us from the evil policies of the other guy! George Washington warned against parties in his farewell address on Sept. 17, 1796. “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” Cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men and women, indeed. We see it over and over again. The fractious parties beat each other up in front of the cameras, and then collude to consolidate power behind marble walls. It’s all about power, and the illusion of a great political divide feeds the monster. Get the new book today! Democrats and Republicans alike trumpet constitutional principles when it fits their agenda, and flush them away like discarded toilet paper when it doesn’t. At the Tenth Amendment Center, we don’t play party politics. Violate the Constitution, we will call you out. Support indefinite detention – we will oppose you. Put your name behind drone nation, we’ll pounce. Clamor for undeclared wars…expect our passionate resistance. Champion unconstitutional health care, education and environmental programs, we’ll stand against you. We stand on principle. We need more of that in our political discourse. Less Democrat. Less Republican. More Constitution. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses. The post The Political Party Hangover appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

    10 min

  6. 03/14/2013

    Don’t Comply. Nullify!

    There are currently more than two dozen states considering bills to nullify various federal gun laws around the country.  Some address restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines, and others address any and all federal rules, regulations, acts, or orders on firearms, ammunition and accessories. Some of them seek nullification success by requiring all state and local agencies to refuse to enforce the specified federal acts. For example, Montana House Bill 302 says the following: A peace officer, state employee, or employee of any political subdivision is prohibited from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines and is also prohibited from participating in any federal enforcement action implementing a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines. Idaho House Bill 219 provides criminal charges for any state or local agents who help implement any new federal law, rules, regulation, or order that “requires any firearm, magazine or firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.” Bills such as these have gotten strong support from the grassroots, much like the support being given to the many sheriffs around the country who have stated that they will refuse to enforce any of the newly proposed federal gun control measures. The same thing is happening in many states to nullify NDAA indefinite detention powers.  In Michigan, for example, Senate Bill 94 requires non-compliance with the unconstitutional federal act.  It states, in part: “No agency of this state, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the Michigan national guard on active state service shall aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012” But some folks, mostly self-professed libertarians, have been attacking such efforts.  These same people who now support “audit the fed” as a path to “ending the fed” claim such non-compliance bills as a path to nullification are worthless.  They call them weak, and many times they actively oppose them.  The general concern?  Well, since these bills don’t require state agents to have an armed standoff with federal agents, they supposedly have “no teeth” or are just symbolic. NULLIFICATION It seems to me that people are getting confused as to just what nullification is. So let’s clarify that first. Nullification is any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null, void, or just unenforceable within a specific area. So, the question would go like this, “if the state isn’t blocking the federal government from carrying out their acts by arresting federal agents, aren’t we just saying that the state will sit by and watch the feds take our rights or kidnap us?  This isn’t nullification!” First off, nullification is less about the legislation itself and more about the end result.  There are many ways to nullify a law.  The courts can strike a law down.  The executive branch could refuse to enforce it.  People in large numbers might refuse to comply.  A number of states could pass a law making its enforcement illegal.  Or a number a states could refuse to cooperate in any way with its enforcement. NONCOMPLIANCE WORKS Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we’ve been touting marijuana legalization efforts as a nullification of unconstitutional federal laws since our inception.  And last fall, when voters in Colorado and Washington State legalized marijuana for the public at large, even the Department of Justice agreed.  They put out a press release opposing these acts of the people, and referred to them as an attempt to “nullify.” Why?  Well, it’s because they know the same thing we do.  Persistent, relentless noncompliance on a large scale will almost always end in a complete nullification.  It may take time to get there, but get there we will.  The feds know it, and they don’t like it.   That’s why using state noncompliance laws to nullify an unconstitutional federal act can be so effective. ENFORCEMENT Federal enforcement of an unconstitutional law relies heavily on help and assistance from state or local agencies.  A quick review of recent actions by the ATF, the DEA and even the FDA makes this case quite clear.    Each of these agencies publish press releases on major actions, including convictions, busts, and the like.  And a vast majority of those have a statement like this, “Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies worked in partnership to carry out the investigation and execute the warrant.” Of the ten most recent field releases from the ATF, every single one of them reported on significant state and local support to carry out the investigation and the arrest.  The same goes for the DEA-Los Angeles division.  And even with the FDA, nearly half of the recently published actions included praise for the assistance or even leadership of state and local law enforcement agencies in carrying out the actions. Fact: The federal government does not have the manpower to enforce all its laws.  State and local law enforcement often times carry the water during investigations and actual arrests. If states pass laws banning both state and local participation – in any way – with the enforcement of a federal law – that federal law would never be enforced. MOVING FORWARD When trying to pass a state law that requires an arrest of violating federal agents, state legislators generally freak out.  They’re unaware of the rich history in using this method to successfully nullify.   And many of them have been taught incorrectly that only the Supreme Court can decide constitutionality. Become a member and support the TAC! So, until more state and local politicians learn the truth, and more good people who already know it get in office, such nullification bills with strong interposition requirements will have a very hard time getting passed. Now that doesn’t mean give up and go home.  But it certainly does mean – don’t be an idiot. Demanding that your state go from 0-100 mph in one fell swoop is really just bad strategy. Work to get something strong passed now, but don’t be surprised if you meet a brick wall.  And concurrently, work to get a good non-compliance bill passed too.  That way, you can actually get something done. It’s better to move forward now with something that will have good effect today and could even get the job done on its own, than to go for only the Hail Mary and keep the status quo. That means you’ve done nothing.  As even the federal government already knows, if enough states follow your lead, you just might not have to push for the next step next year. The post Don’t Comply. Nullify! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

    12 min

  7. 03/07/2013

    Personal Liberty Laws: A Nullification History Lesson

    Some opponents of nullification measures – both politicians and people in the grassroots – would have you believe that such efforts in state legislatures are only symbolic and have no real effect. One has to wonder if these folks think that the personal liberty laws passed by northern states to block enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 were merely symbolic. I’m sure northern blacks spared the agony of getting dragged off by some slaver didn’t think so. And Southern states didn’t either. South Carolina listed northern nullification of fugitive slave laws as its first complaint when it explained its reasons for secession in an official “declaration of causes.” “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.” Pretty powerful symbolism. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 counts among the most disgusting acts ever passed by Congress. This so-called law denied a black person accused of escaping slavery any semblance of due process. A white man could basically drag a black man or woman south into slavery on the power of his word. “In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever.” Many northern states simply refused to comply and took steps to block implementation. The Michigan legislature passed its personal liberty law in 1855. The Michigan Personal Freedom Act guaranteed any man or woman claimed as a fugitive slave, “all the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus and of trial by jury.” It also prohibited the use of state or local jails for holding an accused fugitive slave, and made it a crime punishable by a fine of $500 to $1,000. Finally, it made any attempt to send a freedman South into slavery a crime. Every person who shall wrongfully and maliciously seize, or procure to be seized, any free person entitled to freedom, with intent to have such person held in slavery, shall pay a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, and be imprisoned five years in the State Prison. Note that the penalties apply to “any person,” including federal marshals and slave commissioners. Michigan wasn’t alone in passing Personal Liberty Laws. A Massachusetts Act called for the removal of any state official who aided in the return of runaway slaves and disbarment of attorneys assisting in fugitive slave rendition. Another section authorized impeachment of state judges who accepted federal commissioner positions authorizing them to prosecuted fugitive slaves. Any person holding any judicial office under the constitution or laws of this Commonwealth, who shall continue, for ten days after the passage of this act, to hold the office of United States commissioner, or any office…which qualifies him to issue any warrant or other process…under the [Fugitive Slave Acts] shall be deemed to have violated good behavior, to have given reason for the loss of public confidence, and furnished sufficient ground either for impeachment or for removal by address. The Act to Protect the Rights and Liberties of the People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts also provided criminal penalties for any person who removed a fugitive slave from the state without proving his or her servitude in a state court under the criteria set up by the act – no easy task. And like the Michigan Act, the Massachusetts law did not exempt federal agents. How effective was this “symbolic” act? After passage, there is no record of a fugitive slave ever being returned from Massachusetts. The Ohio legislature took a slightly different tack. In 1857, it passed An Act to Prevent Kidnapping. “Forcibly or fraudulently carrying off” a free black person or mulatto would get you three to eight years of hard labor. Anybody trying to take an escaped slave out of Ohio was subject to the same charges if they failed to go to the proper court and prove “ownership.” You simply cannot categorize these acts as merely “symbolic.” They were binding. They were substantive. They were enforced. And they were effective. Most importantly, they were morally justified. These days, states across the U.S. are considering bills very similar to these personal liberty laws. They address different issues, but their substance differs little from these powerful acts. This modern day nullification legislation will seek to stop indefinite detention without due process, blatant violations of rights protected by the Second Amendment, and the glaring overreach of federal power claimed in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, these federal power grabs do violence to the Constitution and violate the fundamental law of the land. Get the new book today! They are illegal. They are criminal. And they must be stopped. The states can and must interpose for that purpose. The federal government will never relinquish power seized. Judges have proved themselves unreliable protectors of the people for more than 100 years. Our protests in D.C. fall on deaf years. Nullification stands as our last hope. To call these efforts “merely symbolic” mocks the courage and tenacity of those champions of liberty who stood up and said, “No!” to the feds, “rendering useless any attempt to execute” the draconian Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. I’m sure if you asked any of the men or women protected by the personal liberty laws passed by northern legislatures in the 1850s, they would agree with Thomas Jefferson. Nullification is the “rightful remedy.” It’s no less so today. The post Personal Liberty Laws: A Nullification History Lesson appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

    11 min

  8. 02/28/2013

    Who Decides Constitutionality?

    Before the Tennessee State Senate Judiciary Committee in support of SB0250 on February 27, 2013 Hello, my name is Michael Maharrey.  I’m the national communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center.  I’m honored to be here. As you know, in the opinion of Attorney Gen. Robert Cooper, SB 250 violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution. I’ve read the opinion, and his basic reasoning is solid. Never-the-less, he came up with the wrong answer. I’m sure you all remember working long quadratic equations in your high school algebra class. You know that you can work each step in precisely the right sequence, but if you insert 2×2=6 in the first step, you will come up with the wrong answer at the end. Why? Because you worked the entire problem operating on a false premise. Cooper spends the bulk of his opinion correctly arguing that constitutional federal law trumps state law where it conflicts. Quite frankly, that was a waste of time. Nobody disputes that. The problem is that he incorrectly assumes that every federal act is a constitutional law and he builds his opinion on that fallacious premise. Fact: Only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are truly supreme. All the founding fathers agreed – and I mean ALL of them – any federal act that violates the Constitution is no law at all. Alexander Hamilton summed it up in Federalist 78 “Every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.” Cooper apparently wants the People of Tennessee to believe the following federal acts mentioned in Section 5b are constitutional, and supreme. -a Ban on firearms. -tracking of ammunition -federal taxes on firearm accessories Where exactly does the Constitution delegate the federal government the power to regulate firearms? It doesn’t. Some will argue that the federal government has some regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause.  But, we have the Second Amendment, which puts further restrictions on the federal government. Note the most important phrase in the 2nd Amendment –  “shall not be infringed.” Infringe means to interfere with. That doesn’t leave any wiggle room. Cooper mentions the possible unconstitutionality of such acts almost as an afterthought.  He writes near the end of his opinion, “While the bills themselves declare that certain federal firearms regulations are unconstitutional…the responsibility for that determination rests with the judiciary, not a state legislature.” The attorney general rests his argument on Marbury v. Madison. But Cooper is misconstruing Marshall’s ruling. The Chief Justice was merely asserting that the Court CAN in fact NULLIFY an act of Congress by ruling it unconstitutional. Nowhere does Marshall assert the Court has exclusive authority to rule on constitutionality. In fact, quite the opposite. Justice Marshall wrote: The particular phraseology of the Constitution…confirms and strengthens the principle…that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. The attorney general also cites Cooper v. Aaron to assert the supremacy of the federal judiciary and that its rulings cannot be challenged.That case rests on the same bastardized interpretation of Marbury. Such a notion obliterates the constitutional system, making the Court the de facto sovereign. I shouldn’t even have to point out the absurdity of the Court making itself supreme. It’s like King Arthur claiming “supreme executive authority” because, in the words of Dennis in Monty Python and the Holy Grail,  “some watery tart threw a sword at him.” Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese said this: The “logic of Cooper v Aaron .. is at war with the Constitution… at war with the very meaning of the rule of law.” We need look only to the Dred Scott case, which denied even free blacks citizenship and went on to proclaim black people inferior, to see the inherent flaw in this idea of judicial supremacy. Do you really accept that Dred Scott was legitimately the law of the land – even for one minute? Abraham Lincoln sure didn’t. In response to the ruling, he said: “If the policy of government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” Get the new book today! Fact: The Tennessee Attorney General  tells us that only the federal court can determine constitutionality. Fact: Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, plus Abraham Lincoln, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson all disagree. Jefferson said the states “are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government.” And that the “government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself.” Simply put, the people of the states delegated the federal government its power in the first place. As James Madison said “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” The post Who Decides Constitutionality? appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

    9 min
See All (99)

4.7
out of 5
31 Ratings

About

Concordia res Parvae Crescunt

Information