Gov Brown disregards CA voters, 10th Amendment and sides with the Feds
Escalation of the ongoing conflict between the U.S. government and the nation’s burgeoning medical marijuana industry
JEFFERSON CITY — Calling new health care regulations passed by Congress a violation of the U.S. and Missouri constitutions, Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder today filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn sections of the sweeping law that mandates individual health care insurance coverage.
Kinder and three Missouri plaintiffs — including a St. Louis woman — argue that the law raises health care costs, decreases their coverage, and places unconstitutional mandates on citizens.
“If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.”
–Thomas E. Woods
The 10th Amendment Movement is an effort to push back against unconstitutional federal laws and regulations on a state level. The principle is known as “nullification,” and was advised by many prominent founders.
Current Nullification Efforts:
- 10th Amendment Resolutions
- 10th Amendment Bills
- Firearms Freedom Act
- Medical Marijuana Laws
- REAL ID
- Health Care
- Bring the Guard Home
- Constitutional Tender
- Cap and Trade
- Federal Tax Funds Act
- Sheriffs First Legislation
- Federal Gun Laws
- Regulation of Intrastate Commerce
Potential Future Efforts:
- Patriot Act
- No Child Left Behind
- State-Initiated Constitutional Amendments
History of Nullification: While the media generally portrays nullification as being solely aligned with the efforts of the nullifiers of the South and the Civil War, this is certainly false, and reeks of misinformation. Nullification has a long history in the American tradition and has been invoked in support of free speech, in opposition to war and fugitive slave laws, and more. Read more on this history here.
10th Amendment Resolutions
These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do no carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement of the legislature of the state. They play an important role, however. If you owned an apartment building and had a tenant not paying rent, you wouldn’t show up with an empty truck to kick them out without first serving notice. That’s how we view these Resolutions – as serving “notice and demand” to the Federal Government to “cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers.” Follow-up, of course, is a must.
CLICK HERE FOR CURRENT 10TH AMENDMENT RESOLUTIONS
Hat tip: Liberty Maven
March 4, 2010
The wave of “Tea Party” activism and renewed interest in the Constitution in the wake of the 2008 elections has mostly been fueled by a rightfully-deserved fear of the tyranny and reckless disregard for the rule of law that the current administration has displayed. Attend a local Tea Party event and you’ll likely encounter healthy, much-needed discussions on the 10th Amendment rights of the state, the protection of the inherent rights of the individual via the 1st and 2nd Amendments, the unconstitutionality of wasteful federal programs, and even once-fringe talking points such as repealing the 17th Amendment.
Quite often, however, the Constitution is lost on many when the topic of discussion turns to foreign policy and the so-called “War on Terror.” At a recent GOP primary debate that I attended (sponsored by the local Tea Party), several candidates were asked about national security, the role of America’s foreign policy, and what to do about the rising threat of Iran. Despite drooling over their love of the Constitution for the rest of the evening, the candidates didn’t mention the founding document once in their responses to these issues. One of the candidates, in fact, could be quoted as saying “If Israel bombed Iran, I’d slap them on the back and buy them a drink.” Several other candidates pledged their allegiance to defending Israel at all costs. Another candidate responded that the goal of American foreign policy should be to “help nations” and to “pressure nations that do not comply.” All of these statements drew more cheers than boos from the crowd.
From whence springs this disconnect between so-called “constitutionalists” and their eagerness to abandon all mention of the Constitution as it relates to our world empire? Since the GOP establishment takeover of the national Tea Party – seems funny that the rugged individualism that the Tea Party movement represents would even have a national organization, doesn’t it? – it seems that most of the Tea Parties have devolved into throngs of Republican dissenters who only take issue when “the other guy” is the one shredding the Constitution, while using the Amendments, clauses, and Founders’ quotes that support their agenda.
Richard Mack is interviewed regarding the Tea Party movement. He responds with a call to return to constitutional values, all but forgotten by our federal government.
Hat tip: Tenth Amendment Center
At the beginning of every movement is a wild bunch. Rowdy workers on the docks in Boston, John Brown and his half-mad family. When historians trace back from Scott Brown to the beginning, they will get to a wild bunch in New Hampshire called the “Free Staters.”
They moved here a few years back and live on the edge of the forest, not more than a handful at first but expecting thousands to follow, intending to start the republic fresh again. And in a way they did. I came to their attention with an article in 2003 titled “A States’ Rights Defense against Dick Cheney” premised on Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions, making the claim that New Hampshire and Vermont need not participate in the war on Iraq without the permission of our state governors.
They had moved up here drawn to our state motto, I think – Live Free or Die. But it was no big ideological thing, more a free-spirited awakening which brought the usual scoffs from the lace curtain MSM and conventional political religionists here in the cold where local politics sometimes seems a substitute for religion. I received an email from one blithe spirit who said that she was basically about “ . . . opposing gun laws, legalizing marijuana and Hillary is a bitch.”
What we had in common was the premise that Thomas Jefferson had recognized the natural state that formed of its own initiative when ideology was removed from the equation. And acknowledged that in the Constitution by declaring that the states had the natural right and the ability to defend themselves against an abusive, arrogant, immoral or delirious federal government.
December 18, 2009
According to Rasmussen Reports, “Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.
“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 27% are not angry about the government’s policies, including 10% who are Not at All Angry.”
The report goes on to say, “The data suggests that the level of anger is growing. The 71% who are angry at federal government policies today is up five percentage points since September.
“Even more stunning, the 46% who are Very Angry is up 10 percentage points from September.”
The report also states, “The latest numbers show that only nine percent (9%) of voters trust the judgment of America’s political leaders more than the judgment of the American people.” It further states, “Seventy-one percent (71%) believe the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Sixty-eight percent (68%) believe that government and big business work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.”
Rasmussen Reports goes on to say that voter opposition to the proposed health care plan, government bailouts, and higher taxes is especially high.
See the report here.
That Americans are angry with the federal government is nothing new. As a general rule, Americans STAY angry with the federal government. So what? Nothing changes, anger and discontentment notwithstanding.
TOMORROW, Tuesday, September, 22
According to trusted sources of The Liberty Voice, the Resolution for Ohio’s State Sovereignty, SCR-13 has opened the door for public testimony at the South Hearing Room of the Statehouse at 10 a.m. Proponents of both sides are encouraged to attend the hearing and speak up for what they believe.
For those in defense of the US Constitution, the Tenth Amendment sums up the position of those for the resolution:
“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.”
By Harold Thomas
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.”
– Tenth Amendment, Constitution of the United States
Since the beginning of the year, 39 states have introduced state sovereignty resolutions in at least one house of their legislatures. Of those (as of July 28), seven have been enacted (Alaska, Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee), four (including New Hampshire’s) have either been defeated or are expected to be defeated; and the other 23 are still under consideration. Not all of them are “red states”: Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all states leaning Democratic or are highly competitive.
Why are so many states introducing such resolutions?
One reason is that the federal government is raiding state treasuries to run its programs. State legislators know this better than anyone. Here’s the dirty little secret: There is no such thing as “federal funds.” “Federal funds” and “stimulus money” are the tax dollars you and I send in by April 15 every year. Some of that money is taken out to pay for national defense and the federal bureaucracy. The rest is returned to the states as grants – with strings attached. State governments find it politically impossible to turn them down, because the end result would be to give away its taxpayers’ dollars to a more compliant state. In this way your dollars are being held hostage by Washington to carry out its will.
It doesn’t end there. Most federal grants come with a requirement for matching funds – that come from your state tax dollars! Now, state governments face a dilemma: do we try to qualify for federal grants, or do we try to carry out our own priorities, such as education and public safety, without raising taxes and further depressing the state’s economy?
In addition, a growing number of state officials are becoming alarmed at federal intrusions on the rights of state governments and the citizens. For example, proposed federal laws restricting ownership of firearms are meeting resistance from the legislatures of Idaho and Montana. Missouri is chafing under expansions of abortion rights, and Michigan doesn’t want Real ID. The USA PATRIOT Act and other federal legislation in the years since 9-11 have greatly narrowed the rights that are reserved to the states and to the people.