Tenth Amendment Center: Constitutional Conversation

“There’s not much attention paid to the Constitution in Washington. There’s not much attention paid to it by our executive branch of government. And we don’t get much protection from our courts. So one thing that might finally happen from this if the people finally feel so frustrated that they can’t get the results out of Washington — They’re going to start thinking about options. They might start thinking about nullification and a few things like that.” – Rep. Ron Paul

NULLIFICATION?

For anyone unfamiliar with the concept of state nullification, it was the idea expressed by then sitting vice president Thomas Jefferson when he authored what came to be  known as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. The resolutions made the case that the federal government is a creature of the states, and that states have the authority to judge the constitutionality of the federal government’s laws and decrees. He also argued that states should refuse to enforce laws which they deem unconstitutional.

James Madison wrote a similar resolution for Virginia that same year, in which he asserted that whenever the federal government exceeds its constitutional limits and begins to oppress the citizens of a state, that state’s legislature is “duty bound” to interpose its power and prevent the federal government from victimizing its people. Very similar to Jefferson’s concept of nullification, Madison’s doctrine of interposition differed in some small but important ways.

These two documents together came to be known as The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (or Resolves), of 1798. Both were written in response to the dreaded Alien and Sedition Acts, and the phrase, “Principles of ’98” became shorthand for nullification and / or interposition. Over time, “The Principles of ’98” would be invoked by many other states, many times for a variety of issues.

A LITTLE MORE

But in order to best-understand what Nullification IS, you should first understand some things nullification is NOT.

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.

So just what IS nullification and how does it happen?

Nullification is any act or set of acts, which has as its end result, a particular federal law being rendered null and void, or just plain unenforceable in your area.

Nullification often begins with members of your state legislature declaring a federal act unconstitutional and then committing to resist its implementation. It usually involves a bill, passed by both houses and signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law, or it might even amend your state constitution. In this case, it is quite simply a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce a particular federal law it deems unconstitutional.

The same process can happen on a local level too. Your county board of commissioners or city council might take up a measure that rejects or resists a federal law. Once it gets passed, all local agencies might be required to refuse compliance with any federal agents trying to enforce the federal act in question.

In either case, Nullification carries with it the force of state or local law. It cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the U.S .Constitution. It cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order. It cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court if the people in the state reject the Court’s opinion. It is the people of a state or local commnunity asserting their rights, acting as a political society in its highest sovereign capacity. It is the moderate, middle way that wisely avoids harsh remedies like secession on the one hand, and slavish, unlimited submission on the other.

It is the constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal laws.

With the exception of a constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot oppose (except perhaps rhetorically), these actions to nullify an unconstitutional federal law without resorting to extra-legal measures or violence. But such measures would more than likely backfire, since most Americans still believe might does not make right.

There is no question as to whether or when such “official” nullification will happen: It has ALREADY HAPPENED.

In fact, not only has it happened recently, it has been a success! Perhaps this is why the federal government hopes you will never hear about it.

With Massachusetts voters approving Question 3 on November 6, 2012, there are now 18 states that have legalized marijuana use for limited medicinal purposes – in flat out defiance of the Congress, the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court.

AHHH…MEMORIES

There was a time when the federal government took the Constitution seriously enough that Congress actually did what was required to enact a nationwide ban on a substance – amend the Constitution. Even though the experiment would eventually be viewed as  a failure, the 18th Amendment was passed, and the era known as “Prohibition” began. Four years later, it was repealed.

Burt when it comes to marijuana prohibition, the feds pulled another trick out of their sleeves. All three branches of the federal government agreed on a very novel, liberal interpretation of the “commerce clause,” allowing them to regulate virtually any substance, including marijuana, even though legal commerce involving pot doesn’t exist. Since that time, the federal government has claimed, with a straight face, that it has the power to regulate and ban a plant grown in your own back yard, never sold, and never leaving your property – all under the interstate “commerce clause.”

THE BLUEPRINT

But the states just aren’t buying it and it has implications far wider than they want you to know.

Mark Kreslins points out:

“..medical marijuana now poses a real threat to the enforcement power of the Federal Government. With state after state defying Washington D.C. over this issue..Washington D.C. has a choice to make; enforce their laws based on a very liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause by sending thousands of DEA agents into all fifty states, or look the other way. Thus far, they’ve chosen to look the other way,  for if they create the appearance of a Federal takeover of police powers in the States, they will fully expose their extra-constitutional behavior and provoke a direct confrontation with the States who will use the 10th Amendment (hopefully) to defend their prerogatives.”

Whatever your view may be regarding marijuana use, medical or otherwise, one thing is apparent: Nullification is happening right now, and it works! Washington DC will just have to get used to it because this same method can be applied to virtually any issue.

In fact, this type of action is building on many issues, including resisting so-called “indefinite detention” powers or violations of the 4th amendment by the TSA. Pick a constitutional violation, and say NO in your state, county, city, or town.

That’s the blueprint. When enough people stand up and say NO to a federal act or mandate – and enough states pass laws backing them up, there’s not much the federal government can do to force their unconstitutional rules, laws or mandates down our throats.

THE FUTURE?

What remains to be seen whether state governments will be willing to use their power to “officially” interpose themselves between agents of the federal government and the people of their state. In the unlikely event that one or more branches of the federal government decides to take extra-legal measures to punish residents of a state for exercising their constitutional rights in defiance of unconstitutional federal laws, will that state’s government have the courage to hamper or even neutralize such extra-legal measures?

There are a whole host of peaceful actions that a state government can adopt if that day comes, or appears to be just over the horizon. These measures range from county sheriffs requiring that federal agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal taxes come first to the state’s department of revenue.

Besides state interposition, the other thing Washington would have to consider is whether enough of their agents would actually obey orders to punish people for exercising their constitutional rights. There is a significant chance that enough of them would either publicly or privately decide in advance to ignore such orders. As the probability of this increases, it becomes more likely that Washington will not risk overplaying its hand. The reality is that Washington just doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all of their unconstitutional laws if enough states choose to defy them.

Of course, it all depends on the people of the several states: ordinary people like you and I.

Although I’ve discovered that there are more elected representatives at the state level who are committed to acting in a courageous and principled manner than I ever dared hope, most of their peers lack such a brave commitment. Most of them will stick their head in the sand, or sit on the fence, until they determine which way the wind is blowing. And so it’s our opinion, not the opinion of the American people in aggregate, but our opinion as citizens of our respective states, that will influence the decision of our state representatives to either stand tall or to kneel down and knuckle under.

Get the new book today!

Question: do you even know the men and women who represent you? I’m not talking about those who represent you in Washington, but rather in Phoenix, Salem, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Denver, Austin, Oklahoma City, Tallahassee, Atlanta, Nashville, Richmond, Harrisburg, Indianapolis, Columbus and Springfield.

If you don’t know them, and you care about our republic, you should make it your highest priority to get to know them and establish rapport with them as soon as possible.

For any of you who really want to preserve our union, and at the same time retain your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, I can’t say it any better than 2008 presidential nominee of the Constitution Party, Chuck Baldwin:

“..it is absolutely obligatory that freedom-minded Americans refocus their attention to electing State legislators, governors, judges and sheriffs who will fearlessly defend their God-given liberties..as plainly and emphatically as I know how to say it, I am telling you: ONLY THE STATES CAN DEFEND OUR LIBERTY NOW! ..this reality means we will have to completely readjust our thinking and priorities.”

Michael Maharrey and Michael Boldin contributed to this article.

The post Nullification in One Lesson appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

“Wait till the next one is done.”  I’ve heard that from so-called conservative activists for years now.

Some of you said you were supporting the Tea Party candidates in 2010.  And, if that didn’t work, then you’d use your time, money and energy locally to nullify.  But, that Tea Party class sure didn’t stop the big government train wreck.

Instead of moving on to nullification, you decided to wait again.  You were going to hold out and see how the Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare before working on nullification.  And, as usual, the supremes failed the constitution and your liberty.

After that – “Nullification? Yeah, I support it,” I heard you say that many times.  But it was always with this caveat: “This is the most important presidential election in history, so we can use nullification later to hold Romney’s feet to the fire after we get rid of Obama.”

So, again, you decided to wait.  Instead of focusing all your energy on nullification at the state and local level, you decided to donate your hard earned time and money to candidates for federal office.

THE SIREN SONG

Today, election day has come and gone.  On a national level, “Vote the bums out” is dead as a strategy.  Once again, it has proven to be a complete and utter failure.  It always has been, and always will be.  That’s why you see all the pundits, the politicians, the media and all the experts filling your head with the siren song of national elections.

This kind of thing isn’t new, either.

When conservatives voted to oust the big government bums from the Clinton administration, they were had.  Bush and the Republicans came in and made government even bigger and more intrusive.  Those criminals left us all with a huge expansion of federally-run healthcare, national control over education, bailouts and more.

The result?  When you vote out the big government bums – you get different big-government bums.  And they’re usually worse.

But it’s not just conservatives who’ve been ripped off by these crooks.

When liberals ousted the Bush administration, most were opposed to the wars, to the attacks on civil liberties, Guantanamo Bay, the aggressive war on drugs and more.  With the Obama administration, they got new wars, an extended patriot act, excuses about not closing Guantanamo, a ramping up of the war on drugs, NDAA “indefinite detention,” and the list goes on.

There’s nothing liberal about Barack Obama.  He’s just an expansion of what the left hated about his predecessor.

NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN

Look, there’s no cavalry coming.  No one is going to ride into DC on a white horse, and save the Constitution and your liberty.  Washington DC is never going to fix itself.

Never.

And no matter how many times the political class urges you to throw away your time and money on federal elections to get the society you want, it will never happen.  The whole thing is a big scam.

So instead of getting suckered on this garbage even one more time, one more day, or one more minute, how about pledging right now to take that action you’ve been afraid to take for so long. Nullification.

NO MORE FEAR

Maybe you’ve been afraid because you believe some of the propaganda that the elite uses against nullification.  Maybe you’re just scared to resist and are hoping for an easier solution.  Maybe you fear the unknown.  How will nullification play out, right?

Get the Nullification Owner’s Manual!

Maybe you don’t even know why you’re afraid, but you are.  You’ve been saying for years that you’ll support nullification “later.”  You keep procrastinating in the hope that the simple methods are going to work.  But they don’t.  Pressing a button every couple years has failed you.  Sending in cash to candidates from the comfort of your home has failed you.  Waiting for some unelected, unaccountable, politically-connected lawyers to rule in your favor has failed you.

That’s not going to change.

So it’s time to set aside your fear, your hesitation, your patience, and do what’s right.  It’s time to take a different path – one that you know is already having success.  It’s time to show the courage that this country was founded upon, and that liberty requires.

Your country needs you.  Your community needs you.  Your family needs you.  Liberty needs you.  History is knocking on your door.  Answer it.  This has always been your calling.  The time to Nullify is now.

The post No More Waiting. Nullify Now! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

ten·ther \ten-ther\  noun

1.  A person who supports the Constitution: every issue, every time, no exceptions and no excuses.

Ron Paul is out.  Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are not going to win.  Barack Obama and Mitt Romney represent the classic “lesser of two evils” situation.  Rocky Anderson and Virgil Goode are barely a blip on the radar.

Look, I’ve heard all the arguments in this presidential election.  A vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama.  A win for Mitt means the right will go back to sleep like they were under Bush.  The lesser of two evils is still evil.  And more.

Like every other presidential election, people everywhere are shouting from the rooftops, “this is the most important vote of your lifetime!”  But, all these arguments are missing the point entirely.

The 2012 Presidential election is not a make-or-break election.  America, as the Founders envisioned, has already been broken for a long, long time.

BROKEN

That’s no understatement, either.  Pick a clause of the Constitution, and it has likely been violated to the point of nonexistence.  Read through the Bill of Rights and you’ll see how few of those essential liberties are truly in place today.

We live under a federal dictatorship of sorts.  Sure, you get to choose your oppressors every few years, but those people still claim the power to do plenty.  They tell you what kind of light bulbs you can own and how big your toilet can be.  They will arrest you for growing a plant in your backyard and fine you for not purchasing an insurance product.  They relentlessly spy on you, monitor phone calls and read emails.

They drop bombs wherever they want around the world – Constitutional requirements for Congressional declarations of war are now considered an anachronism.  If they don’t like your opposition to what they do, they’ll use a drone to watch your every move, then kidnap you and keep you in a secret military prison.  They call that one “indefinite detention.”

Free speech “zones,” business and environmental regulations that should be the purview of the states or the people, corporate bailouts and endless excuses for their lies, rules and failures.  It’s never-ending.   And, all the while, they keep debasing the currency in the hopes that their house of cards continues to stand.

Ole King George would have salivated at this kind of power.  But, today, some people seem to think that a simple vote every few years is all they need to do to advance the cause of the Constitution and your liberty.

They’re wrong.

TOP FIVE

So what’s a good Tenther to do on November 6, 2012?

Like my friend Steve Palmer wrote in a recent article, the #1 most important thing is not what happens on November 6th.  What really matters is:

“what we do on 364 other days of the year.  If we go back to sleep because we’re happy that the winner is wearing a red jersey or a blue one, we’re doomed to be exploited.  If we stay vigilant and ensure that the use of force by government is limited to its Constitutionally legitimate role, then society will bring the blessings of prosperity to all of us.”

No, I’m not trying to talk you out of voting for one of the presidential candidates, or even into voting for a different one.  Over 90% of potential voters are already dead set on who they’re going to vote for – or against, most likely.

My goal here is to encourage you to do more. Since you’re already set on who you’ll be voting against, spending time reading, watching, or complaining about any of the candidates is nothing more than a daily soap opera.  You can certainly spend your time far more wisely – and help us all in support of the Constitution.

So here’s my list of the top-5 things a good Tenther can do this election season.

5.  Vote for Good State and Local Candidates

It seems like everyone forgets about the little guys.  But these are the people that can change the world.  Like the Constitutional structure that the founders gave us, a revolution in thought and action isn’t a top-down proposal.  It’s bottom up.

So check out your state and local campaigns and vote for people that support the Constitution and your liberty.  There are some great ones out there, surprisingly enough.   Here are a few examples:

Aaron Libby is running for re-election in the Maine state house.  He’ll be introducing one of the strongest Obamacare nullification bills in the country.

John Logan Jones is also in Maine – and a strong challenger too. He was well-positioned to run for Congress, but recognized the absolute need for state governments to take “an activist role in reasserting powers” stolen by the feds.

My friend Anthony Rice is running for city council in Rancho Cucamonga, California.  And Mark Hopp is running for county commissioner in Alamance County, North Carolina.  These are the kind of guys who will have absolutely no qualms pushing legislation to nullify NDAA (like 16 communities around the country have already done) and just about anything else on a local level.

David Simpson is running for reelection to the Texas state house.  He’s been leading the charge to nullify unconstitutional searches and seizures by the TSA.

Bernie DeCastro is running for sheriff in Marion County, Florida – and Ray Seidel is running for sheriff in Lincoln County, New Mexico.  Both of these guys have been endorsed by Sheriff Richard Mack and if they win, could establish some of the freest counties in the country.

Matt Shea is running for reelection to the Washington state house.  He’s a relentless supporter of the Constitution and has worked on legislation to nullify NDAA and Obamacare, in support of sound money and more.

4.  Educate.

Read. Learn. Share.  As more people learn about constitutional principles, the more good people will take action locally, where real change can be affected.

Nullification: The Rightful Remedy is a power-packed DVD that can introduce people to these issues in under 90 minutes.

Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty is the essential guide to the Tenther movement.  It’s the owner’s manual.

Liberty Classroom has a fantastic free resource, State Nullification: What is it? 

3.  Lobby Your State and Local Representatives

Hammer away at your local politicians.  They usually get ignored, so when they start getting just a few calls to support a particular issue, they’ll start paying attention.  Call the ones you know are your opposition too.  Sometimes politicians are so slimey that they have absolutely zero principles (ok, sometimes is too modest).  It’s those people who’ll change with the wind, and if you press them, you can make things happen.

The Tenth Amendment Center has model legislation ready for introduction in your area.  NDAA, Obamacare, Drones, Constitutional Tender, the TSA and more.

2.  Vote to Nullify! 

There are ballot initiatives in play around the country.  You can vote to ban federal or state insurance mandates in Montana.  You can drive a truck through the unconstitutional drug war in Colorado, Oregon and Washington State.  You can stand up for health care freedom in Florida and Alabama, and more.

So check those referendums and vote YES on anything that defies Washington DC.  Every crack in the armor will make us stronger.

1.  Organize.

The most important thing you can do right now is organize.  This really encompasses all the previous four, and will make every future effort even stronger.  Educate people in your community.  Build strong support networks for local candidates and referendum campaigns.  Get teams of people together to lobby those already in office.  And build strong campaigns and coalitions to nullify unconstitutional federal acts.

You can use the Tenth Amendment Center’s Nullify Obamacare Organizer’s toolkit (pdf) to help you along.  It’s a free 17 page document filled with ideas and methods that work.  And no, you don’t have to focus only on the ACA, you can use these time-tested strategies on whatever issue is most important to you.  You might even want to head up your own nullification campaign.

Become a member and support the TAC!

TRUTH

Bottom line?  The time to act is now.  Not next year, or next fall.  Not next month or next week.  Today, not tomorrow.  Right now.

If all you’re doing is voting, you’re not doing enough.  Please start doing more.  There. I said it.

While I know that statement will likely irritate some people, I firmly believe it to be the truth.  And on truth, Thomas Jefferson couldn’t have been more right:

“It is error alone which needs the support of government.  Truth can stand by itself.”

The post A Tenther’s Guide to the Elections appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Get the new book today!

Jose owns a little market on a big-city street corner. Business is pretty good, but he has a problem with neighborhood thugs coming in – shoplifting, harassing customers and basically making a nuisance of themselves. Jose deals with them as best he can, shooing off troublemakers with a little intimidation of his own manufactured by Louisville Slugger. Every once in a while he calls the cops.

Business continues to grow.

Then one day, Bruno walks into the store. Bruno serves as muscle for the largest gang in the city. He suggests that his syndicate can provide “protection” for a nominal fee. Bruno strongly suggests Jose accept the generous offer.

Of course, Jose ponies up the cash. Sure enough, the neighborhood thugs disappear. No more petty theft. No more loitering. No more customer harassment. But every so often, Bruno makes a visit. Jose knows that a visit from Bruno means the cost of protection is about to rise. On top of that, Bruno’s associates eventually begin dropping in frequently at the store. They help themselves to merchandise, intimidate customers and basically create a nuisance.

But unlike the neighborhood thugs who used to cause problems, Jose can’t merely shoo Bruno’s people away with a baseball bat. He tried it once. They quickly reminded him that they work for Bruno. Bruno runs the neighborhood for the syndicate. Jose can’t even call the cops. They won’t come. Bruno’s boss has them under his thumb. Jose knows he stands powerless to halt the mischief.

While it caused some difficulties and cost him a little money, Jose was able to deal with the unorganized neighborhood thugs that used to hassle him. But he finds he had no control whatsoever over Bruno and his clan.

During a recent discussion about devolving power back to the states and constraining the federal government in its constitutionally prescribed role, a big-government proponent argued that we must maintain a strong hand in Washington D.C. to protect minorities.

“The states have proved they can’t be trusted to protect the rights of the people, especially minorities,” he quipped.

This narrative has dominated American politics since the 1950s. Southern governors and legislators appealed to the idea of “states’ rights” to perpetuate segregation. Mention state sovereignty and proponents of a strong federal government will quickly call up images of Birmingham police officers firing water cannons at black people, and remind us that Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus ordered National Guard troops to block the entrance of Little Rock Central High School in order to keep nine African-American students out. Most Americans consider the victories in the Civil Rights battles of the 50s and 60s shining examples the successful application of federal power.

In fact, brave heroes such as Rosa Parks, and countless nameless folks who simply refused to submit any longer, ultimately won the victory. But the federal government did play a role and helped break down an evil system of segregation in the South.

But as we say in Kentucky, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again.

In fact, the indignities of segregation pale in comparison with some of the evils perpetrated by the feds.

The reasoning goes something like this: certain state governments proved they will oppress minorities in the middle of the 20th Century; therefore we need a bigger, more powerful central government to force the states not to oppress minorities today.

But it wasn’t the state governments that rounded up more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans and locked them up behind barbed wire during WWII.

It wasn’t the state governments that studied the unchecked progression of syphilis in poor black sharecroppers in Tuskegee, Ala. Federal officials told the subjects of these studies that they were receiving free government health care. They never told them that they had syphilis, nor did doctors ever treat them for the disease. The victims were told their treatments were for “bad blood.”

And it wasn’t the state governments that sprayed low-income residents in St. Louis with toxic, radioactive particles.

Dr. Lisa Martino-Taylor recently uncovered documents revealing that the feds blew a fine powder made of zinc cadmium sulfide into the air over poor neighborhoods. Cadmium was even then a known toxin, although federal officials claimed in the 1990s that the residents were not subjected to dangerous levels.

But Martino-Taylor says she also found indirect evidence that the powder was laced with a fluorescent additive – a suspected radiological compound.

“There are strong lines of evidence that there was a radiological component to the St. Louis study,” she said.

In fact, in 1993 a congressional study confirmed conducting radiological testing occurred in Tennessee and some western states.

The professor of sociology at St. Louis Community College said documents reveal the spraying occurred during two separate periods between 1953 and 1954 and again from 1963 to 1965.  The aerosol was sprayed from blowers installed on rooftops and mounted on vehicles as part of a biological weapons testing program.

”The powder was milled to a very, very fine particulate level.  This stuff traveled for up to 40 miles.  So really all of the city of St. Louis was ultimately inundated by the stuff,” Martino-Taylor told CBS St. Louis.

The government planted news stories to cover up the nature of the spray.

“There was a reason this was kept secret.  They knew that the people of St. Louis would not tolerate it,” Martino-Taylor said. “And they told local officials and media that they were going to test clouds under which to hide the city in the event of aerial attack.”

The areas sprayed were predominately black. Army documents called it “a densely populated slum district.” This during the same time-period that the feds were “fighting for minorities” in the South.

Evidence points to higher than normal incidences of cancer in residents who lived in the area at that time, although after all these years, researchers admit it’s difficult to gather conclusive evidence.

Here’s a question for you. Why do we never hear the Tuskegee experiments, or Japanese internment, or feds spraying poor people in St. Louis invoked as a reason to distrust and limit federal power in the same way big government apologists use the Civil Rights era as a rational for growing the federal government and limiting the power of the states?

Fact: governments do bad things. All of them. Local governments. State governments. National governments. The question becomes, how can “we the people” best control them? The answer: limit their power and break them into as many competing jurisdictions as possible.

Americans instinctively distrust economic monopoly. They assume that if one company corners the market on a given product or service, the monopolist will screw the consumer. It will raise prices, limit service and pretty much run roughshod over the customer. After all; no competition exists to hold it in check.

Probably a pretty rational fear.

Then why do Americans so readily embrace a political monopoly centered in Washington D.C.?

Seems to me they’re trading the neighborhood thugs for Bruno.

The post The Feds are Dangerous to the Rights of Minorities appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Get the New Documentary Today!

the following is based off a speech given at LibertyFest NYC on 10-13-12

Federal campaigns have been a failure. And I’m not talking about elections alone. For over a 100 years – and probably longer – people have been suing and marching and voting bums out. And the result? It doesn’t matter which political party is in Washington DC – or what person occupies the white house – federal power always grows and your liberty is always less.

The liberty movement is ready for a different path. I’m not talking about something new. I’m talking about getting on board with something that’s already happening and already winning. It’s a path that we’ve been advocating for at the Tenth Amendment Center since 2006.

ONE.

What’s next for the liberty movement? I can answer that in one simple word. Weed.

People have been smoking, growing, buying and selling weed for a long time. Some people get punished for it – and many more actually get away with it. And in my state of california – eventually enough people were on board with this that the political activists decided to take action too – and in 1996, proposition 215 was passed which “legalized” cannabis for certain, limited purposes.

Over the years, the feds have absolutely hated this. At first, they were extremely aggressive in trying to stop people from growing, selling and consuming this plant. But people did it anyways.

And in time – more people got on board and the risk became less. Pretty soon, a number of businesses began popping up around the industry – to the point of what we have today – thousands of businesses around the state either directly or indirectly involved in the marijuana business. This is a market that is nearly impossible to shut down. In fact, today where I live in Los Angeles, there’s literally between 1000-1200 retail marijuana stores – that’s in one city alone.. There are more stores selling marijuana in LA than there are Starbucks and 7-11’s combined.

California, though, hasn’t been alone. By 2005, there were 10 states that were doing the same – and violating federal laws on weed. It was that year that a Supreme Court case was decided on the issue, and in the famous case, Gonzalez vs Raich, the Supremes ruled against the state marijuana laws.

As I was learning about government, I always thought that if the Supreme Court ruled against a law in one state, other states which had similar ones would repeal them. But after that case was decided in 2005, not one single state repealed their medical marijuana laws. And today, another 7 have gotten on board too.

The supreme court may have an opinion on marijuana – or just about anything else – but let ’em come and try to enforce it!

IT WORKS

This is something that we would call Nullification.

The way WE define nullification is like this – it’s “any act or set of actions which has as its result a particular law being rendered null, void – or even just unenforceable in your state.” And you could actually take this on down to the county, town, or local level.

While national efforts to end wars, stop NSA spying, repeal the patriot act, overturn health insurance mandates, audit the fed – and more – have all failed – they all fail – as these 17 states are showing us, Nullification works.

And this November, when people go to the polls, the most important vote isn’t being cast for Obama or Romney or Gary Johnson. It’s not being cast for a Senate or House race. It’s not being cast for anything on a federal level. This November, the most important votes are being cast in Massachusetts, Arkansas, Washington State, Colorado, and elsewhere

In Massachusetts, polls show medical marijuana question 3 up 69%-22%. The 18th state to nullify federal marijuana laws is going to do it by a landslide. Arkansas has a similar initiative that is up slightly in the latest polls.

In Colorado, Amendment 64 is taking things to the next level. they already have medical marijuana. This would legalize the “sale and personal use of marijuana” for people 21 and over. That one is up by 10 points – 50% in favor, 40% opposed. The same one in Washington State, Initiative 502 is polling at 57% in favor with only 33% opposed.

If any of these states pass their marijuana measures – especially the legalization efforts – it will further the de-facto nullification of federal laws on pot that is already happening in 17 states around the country right now.

JUST THE BEGINNING

As Democrats and Republicans continue to work together in DC to take away our rights, it’s states, local communities and individuals which will rise up and save them.

And what is our path? It’s not about federal elections, or federal candidates, or federal campaigns for liberty of any kind. Our path is resistance..

When Rosa Parks refused to move the to back of the bus – she taught us just how to deal with laws that are unconstitutional – immoral – or unjust.

She didn’t comply and then go and spend a bunch of time knocking on doors advocating for a new candidate for office. She didn’t comply and then spend her time in an expensive and unwinnable lawsuit. She didn’t just comply – and then plan on voting in a new politician to change the law which was oppressing her.

She did something that each one of us needs to start doing more often in our lives. She sat there and said NO.

This is really nullification in action – every single time a heroic pot smoker lights up a joint – violating federal law – they’re helping to render that law, null, void, and unenforceable.

When enough people stand up and say no to the government – there’s not much that the feds can do to force their unconstitutional “laws” – regulations and mandates down our throats.

The establishment knows this, and wants you to stay distracted with federal, instead of state and local efforts.

The neocon editors of the Wall Street Journal are afraid of our success

They recently wrote this about our work to nullify another monstrosity – NDAA “indefinite detention” powers. They said if these state and local efforts continue to grow around the country…

“[it] would undermine executive war-fighting authority”

Under their twisted view of executive war powers – absolutely. And with your help, that is exactly what we intend to do.

The post Next Up for the Liberty Movement appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

“Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices.  The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.  The first is a patron, the last a punisher.  Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil.”, Thomas Paine

During my morning commute the other day, I was stopped at a traffic light.  While sitting there fiddling with the radio dial, my mind wandered.  At that instant, how many cars were stopped on how many highways by how many red-lights all around the country?  How many gallons of gasoline were being wasted while car engines sat idle?  How many minutes were being lost?  How much traffic congestion was being created as groups of cars were being forcibly compressed into tightly condensed clusters?

All of these must be huge numbers.  Now multiply them by the number of instants in a day and the number of days in a year, this is surely a huge (and growing) waste, each and every year.  Early in the morning or late at night in my area, it is not even unusual to be caught at a traffic light with no competing traffic moving in any direction through an intersection.  We surrender our intelligence, our freedom, and our mobility to an automaton, thoughtlessly cycling through red, yellow, and green. Well there are many traffic lawyers however I recommend to visit kpnylaw.com/speeding-ticket/ you really should have the highest-quality legal counsel available.

When you add it all up, this is an immeasurable evil perpetrated against the American people. The loss of freedom, the mindless submission, the loss of time, the loss of money as our gasoline is consumed….  Yet this evil saves lives.  I am convinced that most of these traffic lights are worthless, merely moving accidents from one place to another, but at least a few of them actually do prevent accidents and traffic fatalities according to the report from a wrongful death attorney in las vegas nv.  As much as I am convinced that traffic lights are evil, I am also convinced that some percentage of them are necessary.  The lesser of two evils, as it were.

Last Wednesday, I was picking up my daughter from Blues on the Green. The weekly music festival is so large now that we agreed to meet at the McDonald’s on the corner of Barton Springs and South Lamar. Around 9:30, I saw a young woman on an electric scooter come whizzing by. And then another. And then another. Eventually, Barton Springs was literally swarming with electric scooters. Riders of every age, shape and size. And none of them were wearing any protective equipment or even paying full attention to the traffic lights; no helmets, no knee or elbow pads, no gloves. I even saw one teenage girl wearing heels as she zoomed along.

As a personal injury attorney, when I see an obviously dangerous activity taking place, I sit up and take notice. According to Atlanta personal injury attorneys at Harris Lowry Manton LLP, you only have two years from the day you were injured, or the day you could have reasonably known you were injured, to file your claim.

Electric scooters have become wildly popular in South Florida. And apparently it’s not just me, E-scooters were first a novelty and then many began to find them annoying: the darting electric scooters have startled and sometimes scared South Florida pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.Electric scooters travel up to 20 miles per hour and can carry passengers, including children, who stand on the floorboard with the driver. Many people don’t have experience operating or riding on e-scooters, adding to e-scooter’s erratic zipping and zapping in traffic.

Florida’s Governor DeSantis recently signed HB 453. Under this new legislation, e-scooter riders have “all rights and duties applicable to the rider of a bicycle,” including the use of streets and bike lanes.

Cities and municipalities can still place some restrictions on e-scooter use, such a keeping some sidewalks and streets scooter free, and regulating where and how the scooters can be parked.

In sum, HB 453 will take some e-scooter riders off sidewalks and put them on the streets with bicyclists and cars.

See the potential danger here?

E-scooter proponents cite the scooter’s easy and affordable availability, and the ease of taking short trips without getting into a car.

They also point to reducing city traffic congestion and pollution from car emissions.

But what about Florida’s pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists?Particularly in the populated areas of Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, e-scooters add to the already dangerous mix of crowded roads and never-ending construction.

A South Florida Sun Sentinel review of Fort Lauderdale Fire Rescue records found that 74 scooter riders were in accidents from December 2018 through April 2019.

57 of the accidents required a trip to the hospital, with ten suffering severe injuries. One victim died as a result of e-scooter injuries. Another has been in a vegetative state since late December 2018. Other states besides Florida are also reporting increased accident rates. If you have also been involved in an accident, we recommend contacting a Car Accident Attorney.

What can you do to protect yourself from an e-scooter accident?

What should you do if you’re in an accident?

If you’re hurt, call emergency medical services. But don’t assume that you’re not hurt just because you don’t need an ambulance. Many injuries don’t manifest until well after the accident. Call Chicago escooter crash attorneys if you’re injured in an accident in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan or of course Chicago. Matthew Waring has been on both sides of an accident: from winning for a client the compensation they deserve to being in an accident and feeling the pain and suffering of accident victims.

The post Of Traffic Lights and other Traffic Security Measures – Good and Evil appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

When talking about the Constitution as the Founders and Ratifiers gave us, there tends to be two primary viewpoints – those that are in favor of strict limitations on federal power, and those who want those limits obliterated.

Stereotypes in our society generally separate those views by political party support – or even voting habits. People who vote Democrat are generally considered the ones who look at the Founders’ vision as old, outdated, or simply something that gets in the way of their political plans. Republican voters are generally seen as the ones who want smaller government, and the ones who cite the Constitution as justification for that reduction in federal power.

But, many people argue, individual Republican supporters often favor policies that are just as unconstitutional as their Democrat counterparts. They are many who have favored things like the Real ID act, the patriot act, indefinite detention, war without congressional declaration, and much more.

In my own experience over the years, I’ve often noticed a difference in how these two “sides” respond to Constitutional arguments. In talking with Democrats about federal actions they oppose, they’ll readily get on board with a viewpoint that the act in question is unconstitutional. But, when they favor it politically, it takes quite a bit more. And, often times, when providing a pretty convincing argument that the act is in fact unconstitutional, the response is generally something like this – “OK, sure. It’s unconstitutional. But why do we need to be stuck in a period two centuries ago. Those old white guys couldn’t have envisioned our needs for today.”

Basically, it all gets down to a political viewpoint. Use the Constitution when it supports those view, and trash it when it doesn’t.

On the other hand, in talking with Republicans about federal actions they oppose, they’ll also readily get on board with a viewpoint that the act in question is unconstitutional. And when they favor the act politically, it also takes quite a bit more explanation. Where I’ve personally experienced the greatest difference in responses is when providing a convincing argument that a Republican’s favored political program is unconstitutional. I can’t think of a time where I’ve heard that the Constitutional limitation should be ignored because it’s old, or because those “dead white guys” wrote the document. Instead, I have generally heard arguments like this. “Yes, I agree that the founders left marriage rules to the states. So we should amend the Constitution and make that a national issue!” Or, “OK, now I understand the PATRIOT Act issue constitutionally, and I really shouldn’t have been in favor of it when Bush was in office. But I’m not going to vote against Obama over this one issue – we’ve got to get him out of office!”

In general, I can understand these positions, even if I don’t agree with them. At very least, when nationalizing something, I’m hearing from these folks that a Constitutional mechanism should be used in some cases.

And, when learning that a favored program is unconstitutional, I’m getting less resistance to it, even when actions are taken which will perpetuate it.

While this isn’t a great success, it is a slight improvement. But, lately, I’ve noticed a new approach becoming popular, that’s just as bad, or worse. This viewpoint can be summed up no better than by this comment, from Paul in North Carolina:

“You are ensuring the enslavement of America thanks to your ‘purism’. Face facts and realize we must oust Obama.”

So let me get this straight. It’s us – the ones who want to follow the Constitution, who are the bad guys? It’s not the people who’ve given us nationalized education, nationalized health care, nationalized retirement funds, nationalized agricultural laws, and more. It’s the Constitutionalists who are now the enemy to republicans like Paul.

For Paul, I guess he doesn’t care about Republicans who paved the way for Obamacare with Medicare Part D. He doesn’t care about Republicans who paved the way for “Indefinite Detention” in America by setting it up and practicing it at Guantanamo Bay. He doesn’t care about the massive growth in food stamps recipients under Obama as a result of Republicans voting in favor of expanding them under Bush.

He doesn’t care about much, I guess.

For Republicans like Paul – and on the other side, like the “Peace President” who bombs people, extends the patriot act, and keeps guantanamo bay open – principle means nothing. Only winning does.

But, for them to say they want to “save America,” is this delusional? I think so.

Every election, we hear from people that the president must be ousted or “we’re all doomed.” But yet, there’s never been a presidential election in modern times that has brought this country anywhere closer to the Constitution. Not one.

Become a member and support the TAC!

The sad fact is this. America, as the Founders set up, was dead and gone long before Barack Obama or George Bush ever took office.

So, like Paul, if all you care about is your team winning, then yes, Constitution supporters are the enemy. And we are certainly that enemy to both Democrats and Republicans. Why? Because both sides have shown a complete disregard for the Constitution for a long, long time.

But, it doesn’t really matter to me if we’re their enemies. And, like John Adams so wisely wrote,

“Many of the ablest tongues and pens, have in every age been employ’d in the foolish, deluded, and pernicious flattery of one set of partisans; and in furious, prostitute invectives against another: But such kinds of oratory never had any charms for me. And if I must do one or the other, I would quarrel with both parties, and with every individual of each, before I would subjugate my understanding, or prostitute my tongue or pen to either.”

Bam. Enough said for me.

The post Constitutional Purism or Bust appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

As if on cue, various members of the left are getting themselves all worked up over the GOP’s new platform. ThinkProgress published a short piece, written by Ian Millhiser, warning that the “GOP platform declares that the social security benefit ‘Medicaid’ is unconstitutional.” But this really need not concern progressives, since the party platforms are nothing more than formal campaign promises, they mean nothing in reality.

The platforms, for all of the drama and parliamentary bickering that goes into forming them, function only to spark fires under the party’s base. The more noteworthy portions of the platforms, such as the one about Medicaid, will no doubt be red meat for self-described fiscal conservatives and advocates for limited government. Tea Partiers will surely be happy to see such additions and may be more inclined to vote for Romney/Ryan if such language is included in the written part of the campaign.

Sadly though, for anyone who takes the 10th Amendment seriously, who would prefer a return to federalism, such changes are unlikely to come from the GOP. The spirit of this limit on federal power is too often left with the trampled confetti and withering balloons after election day celebrations. If it’s not thrown out completely come inauguration day, the platform is long forgotten, wadded up with the campaign banners and leftover bumper stickers. The only chance it has to see the light of day is when some party intern pulls it from the closet four years later and gets it ready for another hollow convention.

But this isn’t the only reason the progressive left needn’t worry that Mitt Romney is going end Medicaid. In the GOP’s attempt to placate the Ron Paul Republicans, it seems they drafted a rather week plank on the subject, upon closer examination. It reads in part:

We support the review and examination of all federal agencies to eliminate wasteful spending, operational inefficiencies, or abuse of power to determine whether they are performing functions that are better performed by the States. […] We affirm that all legislation, rules, and regulations must conform and public servants must adhere to the U.S. Constitution, as originally intended by the Framers. […] We propose wherever feasible to leave resources where they originate: in the homes and neighborhoods of the taxpayers (emphasis added).

First, any document written for the purpose of rolling back the federal government (that isn’t just a lame attempt at pandering) should do more than review and examine federal waste and abuse. Anyone paying attention knows that all federal programs are rife with waste and abuse – that’s all government programs are!

Second, if a return to constitutional government is really the goal, then it should be well-understood that questions of government are to be made strictly on the letter of the law, not on which agency is better able to perform them. As it stands, the constitution gives no authority to the federal government – none at all – to provide any health services, with perhaps the care of the military as the only exception.

And as for the third point, wherever feasible is the perfect clause from which to renege on the promise of conforming to the constitution. All some committee, special council, or other group has to do is conclude that it wouldn’t be feasible to relinquish state power. Given the massive bureaucracy and entrenched culture of centralized power in Washington D.C., who really expects a GOP administration to carry on with some Jeffersonian overhaul? No one grounded in reality, that’s for sure.

Setting aside the GOP’s infidelity to their platform, and the semantic tricks they play, this debate is still an important one to have. We’re not going to achieve a federal rollback – or even get moving in that direction – without having this debate and winning over a substantial group to tip the balance in our favor. So, for the sake of argument, here is the case for rolling back entitlements and returning to a more decentralized approach.

Millhiser is getting all hot under the collar because he’s afraid the GOP platform fits too closely with a lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act. Were this suit to overturn certain provisions of “Obamacare,” he fears it could jeopardize other federal programs, including Medicaid. If Medicaid were to be permanently repealed, argues Millhiser, then 62 million Americans would lose their health coverage.

Though Millhiser doesn’t make the explicit claim here, he alludes to an argument that others on the left frequently rely on: the Affordable Care Act must be constitutional; otherwise it would follow that other federal programs, such as Medicare, would be unconstitutional as well. The question begged here is that national healthcare programs – of any stripe – are themselves in accordance with legitimately-delegated powers. Even a cursory reading of Article 1, Section 8 reveals that no such authority was delegated to the federal government, but this hasn’t prevented the Feds from administering a host of programs they were never authorized to undertake.

Given the situation with entitlement spending Millhiser and others on the Left have no cause for alarm. The GOP is being propped up electorally in large part by a group dependent on Social Security and Medicare, so those programs won’t see voluntary cuts even if Republicans sweep the November elections. Remember, it was a Republican House, Senate, and President that expanded Medicare the last time they had control. No, if any of those programs are to be cut it will be part of an overall default, and no one will be able to control that.

And despite all their rhetoric about Obama being the “food stamp president,” he is so in large part because of the Republicans, who allowed expansions of the program to occur during the Bush Years. The Right is no more opposed to welfare, in practice, than the Left is to war. Don’t think so? Then ask why we aren’t living in a libertarian paradise by now, what with the supposed “antiwar radicalism of Obama and the laissez faire anarchism of Bush,” as Anthony Gregory recently quipped, tongue planted squarely in his cheek.

But returning to Millhiser’s concern over welfare recipients, if we could return to a constitutionally-compliant government, would they be without health coverage? Maybe, but that doesn’t mean they would be without healthcare – there is a difference. Before the federal government became so involved in the medical industry a thriving market existed, which catered to all social strata, such that no significant difference in quality or quantity of medical care existed between wealthy patients or those living in poverty.

Joshua Fulton, writing for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, explains how mutual aid societies provided these crucial services: “Mutual aid was particularly popular among the poor and the working class. For instance, in New York City in 1909 40 percent of families earning less than $1,000 a year, little more than the “living wage,” had members who were in mutual-aid societies.” He continues, noting that membership in lodges offered many with access to affordable life insurance, as well as disability and health coverage.

Under lodge medicine, the price for healthcare was low. Members typically paid $2, about a day’s wage, to have yearly access to a doctor’s care (minor surgery was frequently included in this fee). Non–lodge members typically paid about $2 every doctor’s visit during this time period.

Become a member and support the TAC!

The reason such mutual aid societies and private social systems aren’t in place, and why prices have ballooned almost beyond comprehension, is because of those very government programs championed by Millhiser and other apologists for the state. Fulton explains how politically-connected competitors colluded with governments to push out the private network of charities and free-market health providers, thus providing the pretext for ever-more intervention into the industry. The very notion of a private, voluntary system is practically unheard of, and demonstrates one symptom of a government-run society that Thomas Woods describes in his book Rollback, namely that government intervention discourages imagination and innovation.

So not only is it the case that Republicans won’t end Medicaid, since there is nothing in their platform or party history to indicate such aims, but supposing they did, it would be a boon for the poor and needy. Once again they could enjoy quality care that was readily available, while everyone – rich and poor – would be free to live their lives without a parasitic class (politicians, bureaucrats, rent-seeking corporatists, and the like) living on the backs of the populace. To this end it is vital we reject the false dichotomy presented by the Left and Right, and nullify those who would force us to live in the dystopian nightmares that are the fantasies of central planners and sycophants.

The post Much Ado about Nothing: The Left Responds to the GOP’s New Platform appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Bully. (bul-ly) Noun.  A person who uses strength or power to harm, intimidate or manipulate those who are weaker.

In society, people run across all kinds of bullies.  There’s the traditional bully in grade school who pushes around the smaller kids.   There’s the punk in high school who picks on other people to get his way.  There’s the neighborhood thug or gang member who wants to control the local territory.   There’s the company creep who lies and cheats his way up the company ladder, and the big corporation that intimidates others for its own gain.  And then there’s the government bully.

To me, the government bullies are the worst.

Under the threat of violence, they tell you what kind of light bulb you can buy, what size your toilet can be, what kind of plant you can grow and consume, and what kind of tax penalty you’ll have to  pay for doing absolutely nothing.  They read your emails, monitor your bank accounts, fly drones everywhere imaginable, drop bombs on people around the world and claim the power to indefinitely detain you without due process.

Even the worst bullies in all the other categories can’t get away with these kinds of things on such a grand scale.

These politicians are nothing more than the mafia – with tax revenue to pay their expenses – which actually makes them worse.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has written a pretty good book about this kind of power.  It’s appropriately named “Government bullies.”  Here’s a bit from the description:

Government regulations are out of control. They dictate how much water goes into your commode, and how much water comes out of your showerhead. They determine how hot the water needs to be in your washing machine, and how many miles to the gallon your car must achieve. Since the Patriot Act, your banking records, your gun registration, and your phone bill are easily accessible by government snoops. Mothers are arrested for buying raw milk. Families are fined for selling bunny rabbits without a license. Home and property owners are strapped with obscene fines, entangled in costly legal messes, and sent to federal prison, all for moving dirt from one end of their land to another. Unelected bureaucrats, armed with arbitrary rules and no need to back them up, stonewall and attack American citizens at every turn. The damage can be overwhelmingly taxing—financially, emotionally and even physically.

These stories are of everyday Americans badgered and harassed by their own government—the very institution that is supposed to serve us all. This gross breach of our constitution is as frightening as it is real, and GOVERNMENT BULLIES is a call to action against it.

Paul is certainly on the money with these examples.  He shares with us stories of the negative results of unrestrained power – and how limits to that power are absolutely necessary.

That’s why the word “hypocrite” came to mind when I was reading some press releases from the Senator recently.  Here’s what’s going on…

Rand Paul has been making a bit of a PR splash of late by calling for an end to foreign aid to countries like Pakistan, Egypt and Libya.  I absolutely concur with this view.  And not only because I consider such “aid” to be an unconstitutional expansion of federal power, but because the so-called “help” that’s been given to foreign countries over the years always seems to have strings attached.  Or, it comes with a bigger price tag, blowback.

Think about all the “foreign aid” that was once given to Saddam Hussein.  Billions of dollars of money from US taxpayers went to his coffers.  He received weapons, training, and even biological research materials that were used for Iraq’s chemical weapons program.

That didn’t work out too well, did it.  But then again, all those people who are getting rich and powerful off the $1-2 trillion dollars of direct and indirect Iraq war costs are probably cheering this insanity on.

Anyway, back to Rand Paul.

So he’s been pushing hard to supposedly eliminate foreign aid to these countries.  On its face, it sure sounds like a good plan to me.  But, all you need to do is read through his press releases and statements – and not just the subject lines.

Here’s one, for example – from a letter he sent to members of the House:

“I urge you to take immediate action to pass a much-needed bill demanding cooperation and accountability from the countries involved in the recent violence directed at our embassies and consulates.  The bill should send a strong clear message to these entities: You do not get foreign aid unless you are an unwavering ally of the United States.”

hmmmm.  Interesting.  There’s more:

“If Pakistan wants to be our ally—and receive foreign aid for being one—then they should act like it, and they must start by releasing Dr. Afridi.”

Dr. Afridi is the guy who provided intel to the CIA which helped find Bin Laden.  He was arrested, tortured, and treated horribly by the Pakistani government.  I think it’s awful how he’s being treated.

If an American citizen provided another country with intel which resulted in a raid on George Bush’s home, that American would likely get the same treatment – arrest, torture, and a very long imprisonment.

I think it’s the height of hypocrisy for a country that claims the power to torture people, to indefinitely detain people, and to spy on people – to lambast another country for doing the same.

In this equation, the governments of both Pakistan and the United States are enemies to liberty.

And that’s my problem with Rand Paul and his phony opposition to foreign aid.  He’s not opposing it on principle.  Rand Paul isn’t calling for an end to foreign aid.  He just wants other countries to act the way he wants them to act in order to continue receiving your money.  He’s using billions of dollars to pressure weaker countries into acting the way he thinks they should.

To me, that’s the definition of a government bully.

Become a member and support the TAC!

In fact, that’s exactly what the Federal government has been doing to state governments for a long time.  They take money from you and use that money as a carrot – and a stick – to pressure state governments into doing all kinds of things.   The result?  An almost-complete destruction of the Constitution.

So, what should be done in this foreign-aid situation?  End foreign aid to Pakistan, Egypt and Libya – no matter what they do.  It also needs to be ended to Russia, Israel, Colombia, Kenya, and everywhere else in the world

Like the unconstitutional power to force you to buy a health insurance product, this forced buying of foreign friends needs to end – completely.

If you want to send your money to help other people or causes that fit your personal beliefs and goals – whether in the US or around the world – that should be your decision.  Not Rand Paul’s – and not any politician’s.  Your choice, and yours alone.

The post Government Bullies appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Even though millions of people want to keep Barack Obama’s Health Care “Reform” law, millions more want it gone.

With the June Supreme Court ruling allowing the mandate to continue – and most everything else too – people are trying to focus on just that.  “What should I do to spend my time and resources most effectively?”

Over 50% of the country wants to see it repealed.  Political candidates are basing their electoral success on their position on the law.  And groups are holding educational rallies about what to do next.

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we’ve offered our own advice on what to do next.  But we haven’t really addressed some of the other actions people are being encouraged to take.  I figured this was a good time to put together a top-5 list.  But, not of the best things you can do.  Instead, these are the things I think you should avoid supporting most.

Why?  First of all, because they will fail or cause more problems down the road.  And also, since virtually everyone – especially in difficult economic times – has limited time, energy, money and other resources, it’s even more important to spend those resources wisely, and effectively.

With that, here’s my Top 5: How to Fail at Getting Rid of Obamacare

5.  Wait for it to collapse under its own weight.

Some people are under the belief that the amount that Obamacare will cost will result in a failure of the program, or some even believe it could collapse the entire economic system.  So instead of taking an active role in pushing to end it, they’re spending their own time doing personal preparation.  Some sit, wait, and do nothing.  Others buy storable food, ammo, and other things that would be needed under such economic chaos.

I believe the maxim that “things that can’t go on forever, don’t.”  But there are loads of things which can’t go on forever – that seemingly do.  For decades people have said that American foreign policy can’t continue on this path.  It does.  We’ve heard that the Fed can’t keep printing and printing…and printing.  But it still does.  Or that the next violation of individual liberty is going to wake enough people up to bring things to an end.  But yet, Constitutional violations continue, unabated.

Yes, Obamacare is certainly an economic monstrosity.  But waiting for it to fail under its own weight won’t help, even when taking responsible steps for your own emergency preparation.  And guess what.  Tomorrow never comes.

4.  Eliminate it by Executive Order.

While pure presidential power isn’t an extremely common talking point for ridding us of Obamacare, I consider it pretty important to discuss.   The use of executive orders has ballooned in recent years for virtually everything.

Both Obama and his predecessor Bush have made a mockery of constitutional restraint with their use of executive orders.  And of course, both sides of the political aisle make excuses for their president when he’s been in office.  All of this is part of our never-ending path towards an executive dictatorship.

Last fall, Rick Perry made a statement that if he were elected president, on day one he would issue an executive order to eliminate “as much of Obamacare as he could.”

Look, there are many ways that executive action could, theoretically put enough roadblocks in the way to bring the Affordable Care Act to an end.  But, to any constitution-loving person, the idea of a President “eliminating” law by executive order should be considered extremely dangerous.

Here’s the big problem.  If we accept the idea of one person deciding whether or not a law will stay or go, what’s to stop the next president from reversing those decisions.  This would be a temporary band-aid at best.

We need far fewer executive orders.  Not more.

3.  Go Back to the Supreme Court.

Some people – primarily legal scholars and so-called experts – believe that a proper next step is to go back to court.  Yeah, right.  They’ll get to write more articles about it, get more attention on the legal discussion and advance the importance of their profession.

But that’s about it.  The fact remains.  In over 200 years, the constitution-violating men and women in black dresses have overruled fewer than 200 Congressional acts.  I don’t know probability stats, but I’m thinking I have a better chance of getting hit by lightning, twice in one day, than seeing the Supremes strike down this federal act.

2.  Vote the Bums out

Blowhards like Bill O’Reilly tell us that if “Obama goes down, so does the liberal movement in America.”

This one could easily have made #1 because it’s so idiotic and ignorant.  Not only would the current alternative give you much of Obamacare under a different name, but there’s virtually no reason to trust Republicans in general when it comes to eliminating the so-called “liberal movement” in this country.  They have been part of it for a long time.

Republicans gave us the biggest expansion of government-run healthcare in three decades when they passed Medicare Part D under George Bush.  They played a significant role in the new record number of people on food stamps.  And twice this year, they voted to keep the program that gave us Solyndra.

But it’s not just republicans who play this game.  Democrats are equally guilty.  The election of the “peace president” brought us new wars, an expansion of the patriot act, “indefinite detention” and much more.

The bottom line?  Hoping that new bums will kindly reject all the power given to them is not just a bad idea.  It almost never happens.

John Adams agreed on this when he said, simply: “Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

1.  Repeal and replace.

I think the phrase says it all.  It should say – repeal and repeal.  Even though I know that federal politicians never follow the rules given to them unless it’s politically advantageous, I happen to like the Constitutional limitations they have.

Get the New Documentary Today!

Even if Obamacare were repealed and replaced with nothing, there would still be a lot more that needs to be repealed to get even close to the Constitution.

The federal government should not be managing the health care industry.  Period.  It doesn’t matter if that management is done by someone named Obama, Romney, Bush, or Clinton.

I don’t want a new name for Obamacare.  I don’t even want a lesser-Obamacare.  I want the feds to butt the hell out and follow the Constitution.

MOVING FORWARD.

You may not want to take the Tenth Amendment Center’s recommended approach to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, but that’s ok.  If you stay away from these five options, you’ll have a far better chance of avoiding a complete and utter failure.

If you really want to see Obamacare gone for good – and not just a few pieces of it – smash the etch-a-sketch approach.  Stop wasting your time, energy, and financial resources on steps that will either continue the act under a new name, be sure to fail, or continue the expansion of federal power.

The post Top 5 Ways to Fail at Eliminating Obamacare appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.