There is a lot of chest thumping going on across America and people are demanding that one particular federal “law” or regulation or another be stopped by physical force.

Is that the right course of action in every situation? Is that the only path? Or, is there another way, a less confrontational answer to the constant barrage of new and more expansive usurpation of power by a federal government seemingly bent on violating every part of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson referred to state-level resistance to federal acts as “nullification.” But he could just as easily have called it civil disobedience or non-compliance. A nullification of a federal act can take on all kinds of different forms. It often requires an entire puzzle – and each piece of that puzzle plays an important part. There’s education, outreach, non-compliance, and more. But nullification doesn’t always require a physical interposition by local agents – standing between you and the federal government.

And while it sure gets the testosterone boiling, an O.K. Corral-style standoff is not required, and is almost never effective. In fact, modern times shows us that the most effective nullification efforts have no such standoffs. They’ve relied almost solely on peaceful non-compliance.

Consider the state-level resistance to the 2005 Real ID act. Over the past five years, we’ve learned that a federal law can be effectively held at bay or even pushed back through non-compliance alone. There are 18 states defying Washington DC’s unconstitutional war on weed. Local sheriffs aren’t arresting DEA agents. And state legislators aren’t proposing it either. But year in and year out, more people and more states refuse to comply with the unconstitutional federal acts. As this keeps increasing, the feds keep having a harder and harder time trying to enforce their so-called laws.

As big as it is, the federal government cannot be everywhere at once enforcing its so-called “laws” and regulations; it must rely on submission, compliance or “bribery” in the form of federal grants to accomplish its goals. Without local and state government co-operation, the feds are stymied and thwarted in many, if not most, of its efforts.

The federal government most certainly needs compliance, if not outright assistance, from the states when it does its dirty deeds. Information-sharing, logistics assistance, access to infrastructure, help from sheriffs blocking roads, and the like. They can rarely pull things off without help from state and local officials.

Just ask the DEA when they come to California. They’re never able to pull off a raid of a marijuana dispensary without the help of the local sheriff or police departments. Or, look at the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare. Without states shouldering the burden of operating and funding insurance exchanges, the entire act could collapse.

The fact is this: Without state compliance and assistance, many unconstitutional federal acts are little more than a house of cards. Refusing compliance on a state or local level is a big deal – and it sets the stage for others to do the same.

So, when local governments like Beaufort County North Carolina pass a resolution stating that they will not comply with federal acts, orders, rules or regulations regarding the right to keep and bear arms, this is an important part of the effort to nullify those unconstitutional federal attacks on the 2nd Amendment. And when states consider similar legislation, they can act as even bigger pieces of the puzzle.

North Dakota’s HB 1183 under consideration right now would forbid any state governmental entities from providing aid and assistance to the federal government or any other governmental entity for the investigation, enforcement, and prosecution of federal firearms laws not in force as of January 1, 2013.

Virginia’s HB 2340, would, “prevent any agency, political subdivision, or employee of Virginia from assisting the Federal government of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, detention, arrest, search, or seizure, under the authority of any federal statute enacted, or Executive Order or regulation issued, after December 31, 2012, infringing the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms by imposing new restrictions on private ownership or private transfer of firearms, firearm magazines, ammunition, or components thereof.”

State and local legislation like these that I’ve mentioned fit the description of the “moderate middle ground” that Jefferson spoke of when he advocated for nullification. These actions are also in the tradition of Gandhi and Rosa Parks — civil disobedience and non-compliance.

Become a member and support the TAC!

This kind of legislation is stating the obvious; that the federal government has exceeded its delegated powers under the Constitution and therefore, their actions are “null and void and of no force” and will not be complied with at all.

Last year, When Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall spoke in favor of HB1160, which became law and required the state to refuse compliance with NDAA “indefinite detention,” he said,

“During World War II, the federal government incarcerated tens of thousands of loyal Japanese Americans in the name of national security. By this bill, Virginia declares that it will not participate in similar modern-day efforts.”

When the federal government gives you laws, rules, regulations or orders that are not in pursuance of the Constitution – you are not bound to obey them.

In refusing to comply, we are utilizing a tool that has shown us it can be very effective. In refusing to comply, we stand on the high moral ground. In refusing to comply, we can win.

Michael Boldin contributed to this article

The post There’s More Than One Way to Nullify first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Cross-posted from the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.

“In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. ‘Do it’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’ ‘Do it’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the names of the gods.’ ‘Do it’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’ So tell me—who lives and who dies?”

In George R. R. Martin’s “A Clash of Kings” from the Game of Thrones series, the royal advisor, Varys, poses the riddle above to Tyrion, who is the “Hand of the King” – the second in command in Martin’s fictional kingdom. After leaving Tyrion to puzzle over this riddle for a while, Varys gives us his answer a bit later.

“Here, then. Power resides where men believe it resides. No more and no less.”

Varys then goes on to observe that power is, “A shadow on the wall,” and that “oft-times a very small man can cast a very large shadow.” In other words, Varys’ hypothetical mercenary will obey the instructions of the man who is most powerful, according to that mercenary’s own perceptions. Whatever real assets the three may have, it is the sellsword’s perception of the relative strength of the “great men” that will determine who lives and who dies. Ultimately, it is the sellsword, not the great men, who holds power over life and death.

While this dialog takes place in a fictional novel, I believe that it does provide a useful insight into our own world. Here in America, more than 300 million people obey the laws which are brought to life by just 436 people and ultimately adjudicated by just nine others. This would not be possible if the 300 million refused to comply. Why do we comply, even when we may disagree with a certain policy? Because we have been brought up to believe that nearly all power resides in Washington, DC.

Unfortunately, this belief is incorrect. For most powers, we should be looking to Harrisburg and the other state capitals. James Madison told us the truth of the matter, quite clearly, in Federalist #45.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

Unlike many today, Madison, who was known as the “Father of the Constitution”, believed that Washington’s powers are “few and defined” – excercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. He also believed that numerous and indefinite powers reside with the state governments. This understanding is confirmed by the Tenth Amendment, which states,

“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.”

While they don’t always do so well on the Constitution, I do think that the Supreme Court has an excellent understanding of Varys’ riddle. Certainly, these nine people cast a very large shadow. If they don’t understand his riddle, then how else can we explain Wickard v. Filburn and related cases? In these cases, the Supreme Court has claimed that the power to regulate commerce “among the several states” enables Congress to regulate how much grain a farmer can grow on his own farm and feed to his own animals. Saying,

“even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress”

If the Supreme Court doesn’t understand Varys’ riddle, how can we explain this summer’s Obamacare decision which claimed that the penalty if someone declines to buy health insurance from a private company is, simultaneously, both a tax and not a tax?

If the Supreme Court doesn’t understand Varys’ riddle, how do we explain the fact that it has, without ratification by the states, adopted an ad hoc Constitutional amendment process known as the “Living Constitution“?

If the American people didn’t believe that power resides in Washington, would we do anything other than laugh at this nonsense? The court gets away with this absurdity only because we believe that the court has the power to do it. The reality, though, is that we have the power to make them stop. The Declaration of Independence tells us so.

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

Unfortunately, as a society, we continue to consent to nonsense. By now, the solution to this problem should be clear. In 1811, Pennsylvania’s own legislature told us what it was.

“Should the general government in any of its departments violate the provisions of the constitution, it rests with the states, and with the people, to apply suitable remedies.”

It is time, now, for Harrisburg and the other state governments to reclaim the numerous and indefinite powers which have been reserved to them. It is time, now, for Harrisburg and the other state governments to apply suitable remedies. It is time, now, for our society to believe that ultimately, all power resides with the people – not with the supposed great men in Washington.

Here is the plain fact. We the people made an agreement, through our state ratifying conventions, that we would follow the Constitution. This Constitution that we agreed to follow doesn’t say a word about who gets the last word in interpreting a law. Is it a state? Is it an individual? Is it the Supreme Court? Is it the Pope in Rome? The Constitution doesn’t say. And the fact that it says nothing specific means that the Tenth Amendment applies. This power was never delegated to the court. Therefore, it is reserved to the states and the people. Under the US Constitution, we can argue over whether the state government or the people get the last word, but the Constitution’s silence on the matter makes it quite clear that the federal government does not get the last word on interpreting a law. We, not Washington, are the ones who are empowered to decide when a law violates the Constitution. Believe it.

In Martin’s novels, the power struggle is waged with swords and bows, daggers and poisons. In America, our contests for power happen in the courts and the legislatures, but Varys’ axiom is no less true. “Power resides where men believe it resides. No more and no less.”

When we believe that all power resides in Washington, nine men and women on the Supreme Court cast a shadow that covers 300 million people and the better part of an entire continent. This is not the system of limited government that was intended by our founders or accepted by our ancestors. It is time for change. Whenever the federal government exceeds its delegated powers, it is our right and our responsibility to recognize that the power being claimed is prohibited from residing in Washington. It is our right and our responsibility to stop believing that anyone has the power to make us consent to nonsense.

The post The Supreme Court’s Game of Thrones first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Have you ever tried to play a board game with a bunch of people who don’t really know the rules?

Things usually start out OK, until somebody makes a questionable move. Then the arguments start, and things go downhill from there. Each player begins throwing out opinions and rule interpretations – all based on their best interests, of course. Everybody wants to win the game, so rule interpretations become more pragmatic than rational.

At this point, one of two things will happen: people will just give up and quit, or some brave soul will actually grab the box and read the instructions. Once everybody clearly understands the rules, the game can continue.

With defined rules, everybody enjoys the game, and the contest will end with a clear, undisputed winner.

Without rules, you end up with anger, frustration and chaos.

The same holds true in political systems. An orderly society requires the rule of law. Without it, those who manage to rise to positions of authority will begin exercising arbitrary power for their own benefit, just like players in a game with murky or nonexistent rules. Tyranny follows close behind.

Sixteenth century political philosopher Johannes Althusius recognized the need for clearly defined rules for government to maintain order and justice in a society.

“All power is limited by definite boundaries and laws. No power is absolute, indefinite, arbitrary and lawless. Every power is bound to laws, right and equity.”

The U.S. Constitution provides a framework, the rulebook, if you will, for the federal government; each clause, each principle, carefully crafted for a specific reason. The entire document aims to define, constrain and control federal power.

The ratifiers insisted on this rigid delegation of power. They recognized that without it, they would quickly fall into a tyrannical system like the one they fought a long, bloody war to escape. They understood the necessity of clearly defined rules that box in power-brokers. They knew from experience that vague or nonexistent constraints on authority would ultimately result in abuse of the people. Virginia ratification convention delegate Richard Henry Lee explained how the rule of law protects the citizenry.

“It goes on the principle that all power is in the people, and that rulers have no powers but what are enumerated in that paper. When a question arises with respect to the legality of any power, exercised or assumed by Congress, it is plain on the side of the governed. Is it enumerated in the Constitution? If it be, it is legal and just. It is otherwise arbitrary and unconstitutional.”

Note the source of power: the people. The people delegate certain powers to the government. A clearly defined written Constitution ensures the agents of that government understand their prescribed roles. Without that definition, we know what will happen. They will do as they damn well please. All in your best interest – of course.

Yet some suggest Americans should just throw out that archaic, dusty Constitution and make things up as we go along. Take Georgetown University constitutional law professor Louis Michael Seidman.

As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Of course, America began following Seidman’s course of action long ago. The result? Undeclared wars, secret kill lists, $16 trillion in debt, erosion of basic civil liberties and federal meddling in just about every corner of our lives.

Get the new book today!

Only a fool would assert that obedience to the Constitution – following the rules – led us down this path.

Refusal to follow the rules brought about the chaos Seidman described, just like trying to play a board game without rules leads to chaos.

In any language, the rules of grammar create a structure, bringing words together in a meaningful way that everybody understands. Without fixed grammatical rules, words get thrown together at random. Instead of sentences and paragraphs conveying meaning, you end up with gibberish.

spanning the copasetic living. understands remains with even our and intergenerational Everything differences diverse many decades of when everybody language, backgrounds

That was a real sentence – lacking any grammatical structure.

A political system lacking a constitutional structure makes about as much sense.

“The American constitutions were to liberty what a grammar is to language: they define its parts of speech, and practically construct them into syntax.” Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man.

The post Playing by the Rules first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

When Department of Justice attorney John Walsh recently referred to marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington State as attempts to nullify federal law – yes, he used the word nullify – I thought something amazing had just happened.

After 17 years of states resisting federal laws on weed, the DOJ is now recognizing these efforts for what they are.  Nullification.

I wonder who’s going to be next in DC.  Maybe the Department of Homeland Security?

In response to 37 states refusing to be in compliance with the Bush-era REAL ID act last month, for the fourth time now, DHS acknowledged that they couldn’t enforce the federal law and quietly gave states yet another “temporary deferment” to some unspecified future “suitable date.”  That law was supposed to be implemented five years ago this coming May.

When states like Montana say they won’t comply with the REAL ID Act – ever – I think it’s likely we’ll see a future statement from a DHS official telling us how states aren’t allowed to nullify federal acts, just like the DOJ did last month regarding weed.

SOME PERSONAL HISTORY

When I moved to Los Angeles from my native Wisconsin back in 1995, I had never even heard of nullification in a political context.  The following November, when California voters passed Prop 215 to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the impact didn’t really register.  Sure, it was strange that former presidents had come to the state to lobby against the Proposition as a conflict with federal law, but I still had no idea – nor did I really care – how it would play out.

Not long after that vote, a friend called me and asked me to go run some errands with her.  Pretty normal stuff, I thought, until she told me what we were up to.  The first stops were some standards – grocery store, get gas, things like that.  I don’t even remember for sure.  But one really stood out.  We were going to a marijuana dispensary so she could pick up some pot which was prescribed to her by her doctor.

I thought, “Dispensary?  What the heck is that?”

When she explained it to me as basically a retail store for weed, I was blown away.  The things running through my mind were probably the same kind of things that people think today when they hear about resistance to federal law for the first time – whether it’s on weed, or gun laws, or Obamacare, or anything else.  “That’s against the law,” I thought, “how can they be open and stay in business?”

It didn’t take long for me to learn that saying NO to Washington DC, while often daunting, certainly isn’t impossible to succeed at doing.  Today, in fact, there’s over 1000 of these kinds of stores in one city alone.

From this, I’ve learned a powerful lesson:  When enough people stand up and say NO to the feds, and enough states or local communities pass laws backing those people up – there’s not much that the federal government can do to force their so-called “laws” down our throats.

A PREDICTION

By 2006, when I decided to launch a project, the Tenth Amendment Center, I was sold on the idea of drawing a line in the sand.  And in early 2009, in speaking to a CNN producer about dozens of states considering 10th amendment resolutions, I made a prediction.  She was really intrigued by these non-binding resolutions that were getting passed around the country and after getting her questions answered, she finished off our conversation with what she thought was going to be a quick question, “What’s the next big thing we should be watching for?”

My answer: Nullification.

She had never heard of the word.  So I explained some of the history behind nullification.  I told her how states were refusing not only federal laws on marijuana, but resistance to the REAL ID act was succeeding too.  I mentioned to her that I was seeing strong indicators that state legislators would start pushing for nullification on other issues too.

She brushed me off, saying basically, “Well, if you think of anything we should pay attention too, you have my number.”

HAPPENING. NOW.

While CNN didn’t want to pick up on nullification as an important trend in political activism – and neither have any of the other news networks, by the way – that certainly doesn’t mean it’s not happening.  Bills are increasingly being introduced, considered and passed on issues beyond weed and REAL ID.

In 2013, you can expect to see NDAA “indefinite detention” nullification as a leading issue in states and local communities.  Obamacare nullification will also be at the forefront.  A number of states will be considering bills to nullify unconstitutional acts by the TSA.  More states will be looking to nullify federal laws on marijuana.  And 2nd Amendment activists are also learning that nullification of federal gun laws is the way to go – instead of hoping the federal politicians or federal judges will somehow magically limit their own power.

These things, I know they’ll be happening in 2013. Consideration of bills like these in states all over the country is a definite.  And while some will pass, it’s my hope that large numbers of them will.  But that won’t happen without you.

WHAT’S NEXT

With you involved at a state or local level – instead of a federal level – nullification has an even better chance of success.  With you contributing financially to state and local candidates, organizations, and causes – instead of those on a national level – the nullification movement will continue its upward march.  With you spending your time and energy keeping up to date on more local politics instead of the worthless soap opera that is the battle between Republicans and Democrats in DC, more people will follow your lead.  While nullification comes in many forms – state, local, sheriff, and individual – with your help, more and more people will join this growing and successful movement…for liberty.

Become a member and support the TAC!

John Adams was right when he told us that the American revolution was not the war itself.  The war was simply a result of the revolution, which was far greater.  He wrote:

“The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

Today’s revolution is also a radical change in how Americans think and act.   It’s not a war, or a change in politicians in DC.   It’s not calling your congressman, or demanding that a federal court take a certain position.  It’s not asking federal politicians to start doing – or stop doing – anything.

Today’s revolution for liberty is about learning to live free – whether the federal government wants us to or not.

The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are already recognizing the effects – and successes – of nullification.  Will the rest of the country?  With you helping lead the way in 2013 and the years to come, I know the answer already.

The post 2013: The Tenther Movement Hits its Stride first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Harry Browne

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in December, 2002. A previous version of it was published on December 25, 1966, dedicated to Harry’s then 9-year-old daughter.)

It’s Christmas, and I have the usual problem of deciding what to give you. I know you might enjoy many things – books, games, clothes.

But I’m very selfish. I want to give you something that will stay with you for more than a few months or years. I want to give you a gift that might remind you of me every Christmas.

If I could give you just one thing, I’d want it to be a simple truth that took me many years to learn. If you learn it now, it may enrich your life in hundreds of ways. And it may save your having to face many problems that have hurt people who’ve never learned it.

The truth is simply this:

No one owes you anything.

Significance

How could such a simple statement be important? It may not seem so, but understanding it can bless your entire life.

No one owes you anything.

It means that no one else is living for you, my child. Because no one is you. Each person is living for himself; his own happiness is all he can ever personally feel.

When you realize that no one owes you happiness or anything else, you’ll be freed from expecting what isn’t likely to be.

It means no one has to love you. If someone loves you, it’s because there’s something special about you that gives him happiness. Find out what that something special is and try to make it stronger in you, so that you’ll be loved even more.

When people do things for you, it’s because they want to – because you, in some way, give them something meaningful that makes them want to please you, not because anyone owes you anything.

No one has to like you. If your friends want to be with you, it’s not out of duty. Find out what makes others happy so they’ll want to be near you.

No one has to respect you. Some people may even be unkind to you. But once you realize that people don’t have to be good to you, and may not be good to you, you’ll learn to avoid those who would harm you. For you don’t owe them anything either.

Living your Life

No one owes you anything.

You owe it to yourself to be the best person possible. Because if you are, others will want to be with you, want to provide you with the things you want in exchange for what you’re giving to them.

Some people will choose not to be with you for reasons that have nothing to do with you. When that happens, look elsewhere for the relationships you want. Don’t make someone else’s problem your problem.

Once you learn that you must earn the love and respect of others, you’ll never expect the impossible and you won’t be disappointed. Others don’t have to share their property with you, nor their feelings or thoughts.

If they do, it’s because you’ve earned these things. And you have every reason to be proud of the love you receive, your friends’ respect, the property you’ve earned. But don’t ever take them for granted. If you do, you could lose them. They’re not yours by right; you must always earn them.

My experience

A great burden was lifted from my shoulders the day I realized that no one owes me anything. For so long as I’d thought there were things I was entitled to, I’d been wearing myself out – physically and emotionally – trying to collect them.

No one owes me moral conduct, respect, friendship, love, courtesy, or intelligence. And once I recognized that, all my relationships became far more satisfying. I’ve focused on being with people who want to do the things I want them to do.

That understanding has served me well with friends, business associates, lovers, sales prospects, and strangers. It constantly reminds me that I can get what I want only if I can enter the other person’s world. I must try to understand how he thinks, what he believes to be important, what he wants. Only then can I appeal to someone in ways that will bring me what I want.

And only then can I tell whether I really want to be involved with someone. And I can save the important relationships for those with whom I have the most in common.

It’s not easy to sum up in a few words what has taken me years to learn. But maybe if you re-read this gift each Christmas, the meaning will become a little clearer every year.

I hope so, for I want more than anything else for you to understand this simple truth that can set you free.

Harry Browne (RIP 1933-2006), the author of Why Government Doesn’t Work and many other books, was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, a co-founder of DownsizeDC, and the Director of Public Policy for the American Liberty Foundation. See his website.

The post Liberty: A Gift That Lasts a Lifetime first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution was written for times such as these.

The debate over gun control raging in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school vividly illustrates the need for constitutional chains.

Emotions boiled over after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. Americans reacted in stunned disbelief, anger and a deep sense of sadness. Questions chased each other through the airwaves and across the Internet. How could anybody do such a thing – to children? And how can we stop it from ever happening again?

Most people recognize they will never understand what drives a person to gun down innocent kids in a school.  We ask the first question rhetorically, more an expression of our incredulity rather than a query demanding acknowledgement.

But the second question, ah, that one demands an answer.

How do we stop it from ever happening again?

Human beings generally suffer from myopia, but politicians take delusions of grandeur to the highest level. They want you to believe that the right policy, properly implemented, will solve any problem and prevent any calamity. You just have to let them do their thing.

President Obama vowed to use the power of his office to prevent another tragedy like the massacre in Connecticut.

“We can’t accept events like this as routine,” he said. “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage? That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that the violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?”

And the president called for action.

“We can’t tolerate this anymore,” he added. “These tragedies must end, and to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and it is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this.”

As the emotions boil through our very souls, how can we argue with the president? We must DO something. Surely we can come up with a public policy solution that will prevent a deranged gunman from mowing down children. Our “collective grief” demands solutions, so we turn to the government.

Politicians stand ready, all too happy to act on our behalf.

Ban assault rifles.

Ban high capacity clips.

Ban all guns.

Just do something.

Let’s be honest; we can’t look at the photo of a 6-year-old child ruthlessly gunned down in the hallway of his school and not feel a sense of rage. We can’t look into the eyes of a grieving mother and hear her voice cracking as she tries to come to grips with the fact that her little girl will never come home again and not bend under the overwhelming pressure of sadness.

Pain.

Grief.

Our humanity demands such a response.

But raw emotion should never drive policy decisions.

Of course, politicians love emotion. Rahm Emanuel summed up the mentality of the modern policy-maker when he said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

The mindless mantra repeated by a grieving citizenry clamoring for lawmakers to “just do something,” empowers politicians to do just about anything, often with dreadful long-term consequences.

“Doing something” after planes flew into the World Trade Center ultimately gave us genital groping at the airport, Patriot Act spying, long, bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, presidential kill lists, torture and indefinite detention.

In retrospect, perhaps a little pause for some post-9/11 thought and consideration before plunging forward and “doing something” would have been apropos.

But make no mistake – your government officials don’t want that kind of pause. They don’t want a rational debate. They don’t want careful consideration. They want power. And an emotionally distraught citizenry gives them an avenue to seize it.

Keep in mind, even after the current tragedy fades into the yellowing pages of a history book, the powers seized by the government in the wake of the calamity will remain tightly held. And you will never get back the accompanying loss of liberty.

That’s why we must apply the chains of the Constitution.

For times such as these.

The framers and ratifiers of the Constitution understood our “leaders” would always seek to extend their own power. So, they insisted on a Constitution limiting the authority of the federal government to specific, enumerated objects. Then they went a step further, demanding a Bill of Rights “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.”

Get the new book today!

Adherence to the Constitution prevents a reckless trampling of basic rights in the wake of an emotional tragedy or national emergency. It serves as a check on federal power and forces careful consideration. If there was not a Second Amendment, do you think for a moment that United States government would allow its citizens to own any type of weapon?

Certainly not.

But ultimately, “We the People” hold the key. We must apply the chains. The Constitution won’t enforce itself. Chains don’t come with a self-application mechanism. It takes vigilance, diligence and persistence to restrain the federal government and protect liberty, especially in times of turmoil. We must insist they follow the Constitution – every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.

Even as we mourn, even as Americans plea for action, we must resist the urge to unshackle the policymakers and the politicians. We simply cannot trust them with unfettered power.

“Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?” – Patrick Henry

The post The Constitution: For Times Such as These first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Obamacare can still be stopped.

And no, it’s not going to be stopped by Pelosi and Boehner – or Roberts and Scalia.  It’s going to be stopped by people like you – pressing your state to resist.  In fact, Obamacare’s ability to become reality in the long term is like a house of cards.  The act is not viable economically and unstable politically.  The only way it can gain a foothold at this point is through compliance in the states.  Resistance will kill it.

In fact, there are 4 ways that you can resist Obamacare on a state level.   Here’s a quick overview of each:

1.  Reject the Exchanges.   States were “given an option” – run the exchange, partner with the feds on running it, or leave it to DC to figure out.  It doesn’t matter what “cards we were dealt” – as some governors are saying.  Running an unconstitutional program for the feds is just plain wrong.  And the first – and easiest – thing for states to do is to just say no.

Shifting the burden for health insurance exchanges to the feds effectively sabotages the implementation of Obamacare.

The federal government needs states to be complicit to pull this off.  Otherwise, these decisions on who was creating exchange wouldn’t even have been included in the first place.  The fact of the matter is that DC doesn’t have the resources or the manpower to run these exchanges in every state.  Some analysts are saying that they only have the capacity to do so in 30 states, and any more than that will lead towards a collapse of the system.

Right now? Contact your governor and urge him or her to reject the creation of an exchange.  Or, get your state representative to introduce a bill banning it.  You can even use this bill in states where Governors have made the wrong choice.  Make a state exchange illegal with a veto-proof majority and you’ve just made your DC-loving governor irrelevant.  You can find model legislation online at tenthamendmentcenter.com/banexchanges

Also, share this short video on the issue from the Goldwater Institute:

2.  Reject the Medicaid Expansion.  During the Obamacare case before the Supreme Court, Rob Natelson and his colleagues at the Independence Institute argued that the law’s provisions forcing the states to expand Medicaid were unconstitutional. Neither the Constitution nor case law, they pointed out, permits the federal government to use federal spending programs to coerce the states.  Seven of the nine justices agreed with them, essentially adopting the arguments advanced in their brief.

As a result, the states may consider freely whether or not to accept additional federal funds for the Medicaid expansion. Accepting federal funds might seem to bring the states short-term fiscal benefits. But the fiscal risks of doing so are very great—perhaps eventual bankruptcy.  Financial and practical matters aside, helping the federal government run an unconstitutional program by participating in it on a state level is just plain wrong.

Get model legislation for your state HERE.

3.  Pass a Health Freedom Act or Amendment.  Already passed in more than a dozen states – three of which were in November, well-after the Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of Obamacare, the Health Freedom Act is a powerful step towards the nullification of Obamacare.  It is introduced as either standard legislation or as a proposal to your state’s constitution, often requiring a vote of the people.

It often includes language such as this:  “An act banning the imposition of any penalty, tax, fee or fine on those who do not purchase health insurance.”

According to Michael Cannon of the CATO Institute, in order to operate an exchange, state employees would have to determine eligibility for ObamaCare’s “premium assistance tax credits.” Those tax credits trigger penalties against employers (under the employer mandate) and residents (under the individual mandate). In addition, state employees would have to determine whether employers’ health benefits are “affordable.” A negative determination results in fines against the employer. These are key functions of an exchange.

Thus, if the state establishes an exchange, then that law would violate state law by indirectly compelling employers and individual residents to participate in a health care system. That sort of law is precisely what the Health Care Freedom Act exists to prevent.

But it’s not just exchanges.  This would prevents the adoption of any health care policies that are inconsistent with the Health Care Freedom Act.  Under Obamacare, that will likely be many.  Get more information at tenthamendmentcenter.com/obamacare/

Get the New Documentary Today!

4.  Pass a Federal Health Care Nullification Act.  If you like the idea of being on the side of the Constitution, then this step is for you.  It’s the toughest to get through for sure, but it doesn’t hurt to try to get this introduced and debated while working on any of the previous three steps, the low-hanging fruit.  This Act, model legislation from the Tenth Amendment Center, takes the constitutional view that the federal government doesn’t have the delegated authority to run a health care system as proposed in the Affordable Care Act.

This bill not only declares the entire federal act to be null and void within your state, but provides for actions to prevent its enforcement in the future.  Get it online at tenthamendmentcenter.com/obamacare

THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW

In many states, even the simplest – rejecting the exchange – is an extremely difficult proposition.  And in others, you can move right to step four.  While each one of these steps alone won’t result in a nullification of the act, they’re all an important piece of the puzzle.  An act of resistance in one state leads to courage and doing the same in another.  At the same time, some courageous types might get the notion that they can turn it up a notch and take a stronger stand in their state than you have in yours

Action leads to action.  And, as our motto says, Concordia res parvae crescunt.  This is a Latin phrase taken from a letter written by John Dickinson, who was known as “the penman of the Revolution.”  It means small things grow great by concord.

Either way, if you do nothing, you know what will happen.  So, get going now, and stand up for your rights!

ACTION ITEMS:

1. Model Legislation for all 4 steps available here:

2. Contact your state reps and senators and urge them to introduce one or more steps to your state legislature

3. Volunteer to help the movement grow:

The post 4 Steps You Can Take to Stop Obamacare Now first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

When talking with people about executing a state-based strategy to devolve power away from the federal government, I often run into immediate and vigorous protests.

“Our state legislators are spineless. They will never pass any of your legislation.”

“The state will never risk its federal funding. We can’t stand up to the feds.”

“The party establishments are too entrenched; we can’t get anything done at the state level.”

These, and many other barriers, do indeed stand in the way of effectively utilizing nullification at the state level. But most people take too short of a view and get discouraged. They focus on what cannot be done today and miss the bigger picture – what we can do today to set the stage for what we will do tomorrow.

We have a long war ahead of us, and we won’t win it through one decisive battle or a quickly executed short-game.

The tide in the Pacific during World War II turned in favor of the Allies after the Battle of Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway. But the United States still faced a determined Japanese military entrenched across a vast expanse of the Pacific. After its costly victory in the Battle of Midway, the American Pacific command didn’t try to win the war by immediately attacking Japan or its Pacific strongholds, but instead executed an island hopping strategy that bypassed the most heavily fortified Japanese positions. The leapfrogging strategy focused Allied resources on less strongly defended positions that could support a further drive toward the Japanese mainland. The strategy effectively cut off Japanese strongholds like Rabaul, leaving them to “wither on the vine.”

Operation Cartwheel kicked off in the summer of 1943, but the Allies weren’t in a position to actually invade Japan until the fall of Okinawa in June of 1945.

The U.S. and Allied forces used a long-range strategy executed over a two-year period to win the War in the Pacific.

It will take an equally long-range strategy to rein in an out of control federal government.

Americans tend to want instant results. But the U.S. didn’t reach this point in just a few presidential administrations. It took more than 75 years of usurpation to amass $16 trillion in debt, and strip virtually all power and authority away from the states and the people.

State nullification may well be our last hope. But we simply can’t expect every state to immediately stand up and begin pushing back against the federal government.

Some states do currently have a climate conducive to nullification efforts on certain issues. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center indicate at least 10 states will seek to nullify the detention provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Act. Currently, at least 17 states will refuse to implement state-run health insurance exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and several states will push legislation to more aggressively block implementation of the national health care program. Eighteen states have legalized medical marijuana, and at least seven other states will consider bills to create medicinal cannabis programs in the upcoming legislative season.

But many state legislatures won’t consider any kind move that could potentially upset the apple cart. They can’t afford to. For example, my home state of Kentucky receives more than $1.50 in federal funding for every dollar collected in federal taxes. We are a welfare state, and Kentucky lawmakers know it.

So, should people in states like Kentucky simply give up and live with the fact that bureaucrats in D.C. will run their lives forevermore?

Of course not!

Like Allied forces in the Pacific during WWII, folks in these states will have to play a long-game, focusing on winning small victories, consolidating positions, then moving on to the next battle.

Start by networking various groups in the state and educating others in the principles of nullification, founding history and state sovereignty.

This can begin to change the general climate in the state and make it more favorable for future activism. Most Americans don’t know what nullification is, much less its rich history. This has to change before we can expect our lawmakers to actively push nullifying legislation.

Target specific unfriendly representatives and senators, and actively campaign to remove them from office.

You say your lawmakers simply won’t consider nullification or state sovereignty related legislation? Your governor kowtows to the feds?

Then replace them.

Support a governor who will stand up for the sovereignty of the state. Start a PAC and raise money for nullification friendly candidates.  Again considering Kentucky as an example – a huge number of representatives won new terms without any opposition in the last election. How can we expect lawmakers to consider the will of their constituents when they have no fear of losing their jobs? If you live in a district with an unopposed representative, challenge him or her. Even if you lose, you will inject state sovereignty issues into the debate. At least there will BE a debate.

Build single-issue coalitions.

Not every state features a political climate conducive to nullifying the health care act. But people in those states might just buy into legalization of medical marijuana or nullification of NDAA detention. Some states won’t have the spine to stand up to the TSA, but with economic interests at stake, they might just push back against the EPA. In every state, federal intervention in certain areas raises the ire of the people. Find one or two of those issues and focus on them. Build a coalition and try to get a bill passed in that one area. Working with others on a single issue can build bridges and provide the opportunity to “sell” you principles to people who now consider you an ally.

Finally, don’t be afraid to settle for half a loaf.

Many activists will throw up their hands and quit when they see legislation moving forward that they consider watered down. Obviously, you would love to have a whole loaf of fresh-baked bread. But a few slices of warm, buttered bread taste better than none at all. While a non-binding resolution with no teeth may not seem like a real win, it takes a small piece of ground, it changes the environment and it sets the stage for stronger legislation down the road.

Get the new book today!

You might like to have those criminal penalties for federal agents in your TSA bill. But what have you accomplished if you insist on holding out for that in a political climate that will not allow passage? Perhaps you will find yourself better served getting a non-compliance bill passed. Again, you’ve taken a little ground, changed the political climate and set the stage for a stronger bill.

The battle will prove long and difficult. We have many minds to change. Many barriers to overcome. Many enemies to subdue. But we cannot allow ourselves to become discouraged by the apparent strength of the opposition. We cannot become disheartened when we don’t see immediate results. And we cannot grow weary of doing good.

The Allies won the War in the Pacific one small, insignificant island at a time. It’s up to those of us who love liberty to develop strategies and implement the tactics that will lead to victory in each state. It won’t happen in a day. It won’t happen in a year. It may not even happen in two years. But if we commit to the long game, we can island hop our way to victory.

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” – Sun Tzu

The post Playing the Long Game first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Sometimes people lash out at us Tenthers because they’re scared.  They have some preconceived notion of the kinds of things we support, or oppose.  Others are just ignorant.  They feel that devolving power outside of DC means that the things they love cannot be done.  It’s the feds or bust!  That’s their view.  And still others who attack people as being Tenthers do so because they’re just good old-fashioned hypocrites.  They hate Constitutional limits sometimes and gladly praise them at other times.

In all these cases, people are using the word “Tenther” as a slur, of sorts.  If that’s the case, I say bring on the attacks!

But, I digress.

SCARED

The most prominent example of someone who’s scared is Rachel Maddow.  Ok, well…she’s probably not frightened herself and is likely just a fear monger, but her M.O. is to play off the fear of others who are.  In this case, people like Rachel like to conflate support for limiting federal power with racism, support of slavery, and other nefarious causes.

America has a horrible history with hatred based on race.  From the slaughter of countless indigenous Indians, to slavery, discrimination against Irish, Jews and others – this country has not been a shining example of love, peace and freedom over the years.  And add to that the fact that some prominent people in favor of racial segregation in the mid-20th century used the Tenther tool of Nullification to back up their views – and you’ve got a recipe for some legitimate fear.

I won’t get into all the little details right here.  But, to be clear, American Indians weren’t killed in large numbers due to federalism.  Nullification wasn’t used by people to defend slavery.  It was used by abolitionists.  And those who advocated for these principles to defend the morally reprehensible practice of segregation were not only an anomaly, they were just plain wrong.

IGNORANT

Then we have the ignorant types who think that being a Tenther is bad because it would eliminate some favorite program of theirs.  There’s certainly some fear at play in this group as well, but I think it’s primarily because they’re simply misinformed.

Most of the times, these folks will cite a list of programs that would be ended under our so-called “radical” view of the 10th Amendment.  They then end it there as if the only way to run virtually any program that helps people is through the good graces of the politicians in Washington DC.

Never will you hear them saying things like, “These Tenthers want to eliminate social security.  While I think it’s better to have this done by the Federal government, those who are in favor of this as a government program shouldn’t worry as much as some tell you to – because under the Tenther view, such programs could be carried out by the states.”

No, they never say that.  They also never seem to even think that the market could do a better job than the government at whatever program they’re worried about losing, but, that’s a different conversation altogether.

Either way, they’re either blind or ignorant to the fact that someone or something else could possibly do what they want done.

HYPOCRITES

Finally, we have the fakes.  These are the people that rail on Tenthers as evil, or scary, or dangerous to the status quo on the one hand, but use the same talking points on the other.

Nan Aron is one of these.  She’s the founder and president of Alliance for Justice, “a national association of over 100 organizations, representing a broad array of groups committed to progressive values and the creation of an equitable, just, and free society.”

In general, these are not bad goals at all (depending on how they’re accomplished, of course!)

But in the Huffington Post yesterday, Aron wrote an alarmist piece about Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito talking, tongue-in-cheek, about the 10th Amendment.  Here’s what Alito had to say in a recent speech:

“It is hard not to notice that Congress’ powers are limited.  And you will see there is an amendment that comes right after the First Amendment, and there’s another that comes after the Ninth Amendment. Those are just a couple of examples.”

Not a thumping level of support for the 10th, but at least the guy acknowledged it.  But this one line set Aron on fire.  Her article seems to be intended to serve as a warning to people that Alito is a) a Tenther and b) this is something every good person should fear.

The idea that Alito is a strict constitutionalist Tenther is so laughable I won’t address it beyond this: Sam sounds like a Tenther when his political opponents are in power, but like the national Republican party, he rarely holds to that rhetoric when decision-time comes.

On point B, Aron fits into the first two categories.  She not only sounds frightened, but also comes across as ignorant to the fact that maybe the federal government isn’t the best organization to do the things she cherishes so deeply.  Here’s an excerpt:

The Tenthers rely on a pinched and largely discredited interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, which would have the effect of rendering invalid almost all of the social, economic, and civil rights progress of the past century. If they had their way, the federal government would be severely weakened and programs like Social Security, Medicare, worker health and safety regulations, environmental controls, and much more would be gone.

Of course, she added a little fear mongering to the mix too, with this:

For those of us who cherish the rights and progress won with so much effort from the New Deal to today, that quote from Alito’s speech isn’t just a throw-away line for the edification of a sympathetic crowd — it’s a threat.  

The real kicker in Nan’s article was her attack on Alito for even talking about Federalism. First, here’s what he said:

“The arguments [by Obama’s solicitors general] begin to suggest a vision of society in which the federal government towers over people, and federalism offers no refuge. Government follows every move, and takes away control of religious institutions. This is not America, or the society our Constitution contemplates.”

And Aron’s response:

This kind of fevered language is often heard on Fox News, right-wing radio, or from the mouths of Tea Party candidates. But this is a justice of the Supreme Court laying out an agenda that is indistinguishable from that expressed by the growing Tenther movement.

These are all very interesting viewpoints from a lady who runs an organization that made very similar statements to Alito’s when Bush was in office.  They produced a fantastic video a few years ago titled “The Government Makes Mistakes.”  My favorite line was this: “If the government were never wrong, we wouldn’t need rights.”

Obviously then, Aron has some healthy distrust of government power – and wants that power limited.  So do I.

But here’s the kicker.  She wasn’t just doing this kind of thing when Bush was in power.  Today, a featured campaign on her website is opposition to HR5, the Republican-backed tort reform bill. This is something that a good Tenther would certainly oppose as well.  Here’s the statement from Aron’s organization:

[HR5] raises serious federalism concerns. In our legal system, states have historically been allowed to craft laws allowing injured victims to seek compensation in court.  This legislation upends that federal/state balance by explicitly preempting state tort law, denying states the freedom to create their own approach to malpractice and to decide what’s in the best interests of the people living in their state.

That’s a pretty solid viewpoint on HR5.  We’ve run similar analysis here as well. It sounds to me like Nan Aron is in serious danger of becoming a Tenther herself.  Actually, I think she’s already there when it’s to oppose programs that don’t fit in her political worldview.  But she, like many others on both sides of the aisle get cloudy in the head when it’s their guy doing wrong.

The sad state of affairs in this country is that no one really cares about the 10th amendment – or the Constitution as a whole.  Well, except when it furthers their own political agenda.

Then again, there’s some of us out here who have the Constitution itself as a political agenda.  With your help, our numbers will continue to grow, and the Nan Aron’s on the left and the right will be rendered irrelevant.

The post Ignorance, Fear and Hypocrisy: Tools of the Opposition first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Thank you.

I could easily be done with those two simple words. They’re worth repeating, though. Thank you.

I know there’s a lot of people out there who say it, but I think I’m the luckiest man on earth. And not just for the standard reasons, but because I’ve been given a great gift in my life.

Yes, the standard things. No, they’re not really “standard” – I’m referring to the types of things that most people who are expressing thanks will mention. For example, on my ninth anniversary with Sarah Beth Rosa last month, I counted myself the luckiest man alive. I certainly am. I’m also thankful for the great friends and family members that I love and who love me unconditionally. I am thankful to have a good roof over my head, and so much more.

But tonight, I’m feeling unusually thankful for things that I don’t always reflect on. And while that’s likely driven by the holiday this week, my gratitude is sincere – and strong.

I’m thankful to be alive – right now.

In an age of growing tyranny, I’m grateful. In a time where the so-called land of the free has a government that spies on you, claims the power to kidnap you, will fine you for not buying something and takes your money to keep failing mega-corporations afloat, I’m thankful.

Living in America means that the government can spy on you, read your emails, and monitor your bank accounts. It will bomb and occupy other countries in your name, lock people up for growing a plant, and treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent for the simple act of having purchased an airline ticket.

But through all this evil, I’m thankful to be here. Now.

You see, there’s no greater time for a lover of liberty to be alive than when liberty is in extreme danger. That time is now.

Samuel Adams was given the gift of being alive at a time when he was needed to rise up against the tyranny of the king. Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and Henry David Thoreau were given the gift of resisting and undermining the crimes of slavery.

And today, you and I have been given a gift. We are alive right now when tyranny is advancing faster than it has in a long time. War, mass incarceration, a growing police state and the destruction of the currency. We are lucky to have been given this great opportunity to carry the torch of liberty in its time of maximum danger.

When I’m speaking positively of people standing up to these evils and resisting them locally – I’ll occasionally hear someone talk about how things will never turn around. Even in the face of hearing about local communities resisting federal attacks on due process, or states rejecting federal mandates or bans on plants, they tell me that things are far too gone.

With all the aggressive attacks on liberty that happen every single day, this kind of defeated emotional response is understandable. But every step forward – no matter how small – gives me hope.

Every new individual who comes to the position that they no longer want to support the criminal cabal keeps me pushing harder.

And when I’m feeling crushed by the weight of the empire, or 18-hour workdays, or the setbacks that happen all the time too, a quick read of something written by the late, great Harry Browne always gets me back on track. Here’s the part that gets me:

*******

E.B. White, the author of children’s books, once said (slightly paraphrased), “As long as there is one honest man, as long as there is one upright woman, the future is not hopeless, because the contagion may spread.”

If you’re that honest man or that upright woman, the future isn’t hopeless, because your example may inspire others.

If you speak up when you have the chance – calling into radio shows, writing letters to the editor, participating in Internet forums, just talking with friends or business associates without sacrificing your position – the future isn’t hopeless, because you never know who will hear or read your words.

Become a member and support the TAC!

You may say just the right thing to finally bring around someone who’s close to crossing the line to being active – someone with far more resources, far more talent, far more skills, or far more influence than you have – someone who has the ability to multiply your efforts a hundred or a thousand times over, just because of who that person is.

No, you can’t change America all by yourself. Neither can you do so just by wishing for it.

But you might be the one who inspires one or more people who can make an enormous difference.

Are you that honest man, that upright woman?

If you are, the future is not hopeless.

*******

Thank you, Harry Browne, your words ring true more and more each year.

The post Thankful. Even in the Face of Tyranny first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.