Tenth Amendment Center: Constitutional Conversation

In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson found himself in a position to nearly double the size of U.S. territory. He also sought to avoid future conflicts with France over Mississippi River navigation rights. But, the Louisiana Purchase gave the staunch advocate for a strict reading of federal power a pretty hefty dilemma.

He was well aware that the Constitution delegated the general government no authority to take such action. In fact, in a letter that year to John Breckinridge – the man who sponsored his 1798 Kentucky Resolutions rejecting unconstitutional federal powers – he referred to the purchase as “beyond the Constitution.”

In order to remain true to his principles, the states would need to ratify a constitutional amendment delegating to the federal government the power to make the purchase. But the clock was ticking and the deal would likely fall apart in the time necessary to complete the amendment process. And, his cabinet insisted an amendment was unnecessary anyway.

So what did Jefferson do?

He did what every good politician eventually does. He abandoned principle to pragmatism and plunked down $15 million for the 827,000 square miles of land.

You have to give the third president credit for at least coming up with a colorful rationalization. In that same letter to Breckinridge, he wrote:

“It is the case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory; and saying to him when of age, I did this for your good.”

Jefferson’s obfuscation shouldn’t surprise any of us. Compromise and flip-flopping go with politics like peanut butter goes with jelly. It just goes to show; even those personalities we hold out as the most principled – the so-called great ones – sometimes disappoint us.

How should we handle this kind of disappointment? Forever write off the offender as a traitor to the cause? Ignore the foible and continue to prop him up on his pedestal? Tear him down or make excuses for him?

Or is there an altogether better way to approach things?

Disappointment washed across the liberty movement like a tsunami over the last few weeks. For two years, thousands of freedom lovers poured their hearts and souls into a presidential campaign, only to see it stumble far short of the finish line. Another personality engaged in political maneuvering that some in the liberty movement found shrewd and pragmatic. Others expressed their disgust with all kinds of vicious condemnations. The events of the last several weeks left many liberty lovers sounding confused, hopeless and defeated.

This brings up important questions: why do we invest so much time and energy into personalities when history teaches us that disappointment is a virtual certainty? After all, isn’t the liberty movement about a set of principles – and not about a person’s name?

Granted, we need leaders to advance our ideas. And when politicians pass good legislation, which is rare, is certainly does help too. But when the personalities become the focus of the movement, we set ourselves up for failure.

People will always disappoint us at some point. They will make mistakes. They will abandon principles for one reason or another. And ultimately, they will fade away.

We simply cannot afford to place all of our hopes on a single man or woman ascending to the White House throne, no matter how great that person may appear. Electing a handful of “good ones” to Congress won’t guarantee victory for the cause either. Even the “good ones” can prove not so good when elevated to positions of power.

So, instead of rallying around a cult of personality, I suggest we continue to build our movement on a set of unchanging principles.

At the Tenth Amendment Center, we intentionally avoid getting all wrapped up in the players on the field – especially on a national level. Instead, we tirelessly focus our attention and efforts on advancing one agenda: follow the Constitution. Every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.

Of course, we praise politicians and leaders when they support our cause and put our principles into action. We quote them when they get it right. We publish their articles when they articulate them well.

But we call them out just as quickly when they fail to uphold our ideals. For us here at the TAC, people serve a purpose as players on the board, but not as the objective of the game. Leaders, politicians and personalities have a purpose, but they are never the purpose.

Our focus on principle means we don’t align ourselves exclusively with any particular political movement or their various leaders. We don’t claim the mantle of Republican or Democrat. We aren’t Tea Partiers or Occupiers. We don’t call ourselves liberals or conservatives. And we don’t cast our lot exclusively with libertarians either.

We simply want to live free. So, we build coalitions where we see opportunities to advance the principles of constitutionally limited government and the decentralization of power. Sometimes we work with the right. Sometimes we do so with the left.

And, most of the time we irritate both sides of the political aisle.

With all of the angst in the liberty movement right now, perhaps it’s time to consider a fresh approach. I hope you will take some time to look seriously at the work we do here at the Tenth Amendment Center. Maybe instead of investing so much effort in promoting a few individuals on the national level, we should instead focus on advancing a set of principles.

Become a member and support the TAC!

I can guarantee you this: no matter who wins the presidential election in 2012, no matter what crazy statement this or that politician may make in the coming year, no matter who casts a stupid vote or makes a disappointing endorsement in the future, we will be right here doing what we’ve done for the last six years – fighting to limit the size and scope of the federal government to its properly prescribed road.

To quote Jefferson once again, “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.”

There, sir, you were certainly right.

Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.

The post Principles vs Personalities appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Agents from the DEA raid marijuana dispensaries around Southern California more and more these days. And the Obama administration shows no indication that it plans on letting up, either.

But people in California – and around the country too – are saying, “enough is enough!”

The issue is medical. It’s moral. And it’s constitutional too.

On the latter, one could simply look to the Tenth Amendment. This is the one which says that the federal government is only authorized to do a limited number of things, and everything else is left to the states or the people as the people of each state determine.

What?

Yup, it’s pretty simple. For example, if you grow some strawberries in your backyard and eat them in your house, those berries would be outside the purview of federal power. It would also mean that if Sacramento authorized your neighbor to run a for-profit strawberry business which raised the plants here in California and sold them in your neighborhood, this business would be off-limits to the feds too.

SMASHING STEREOTYPES

When thinking of a marijuana advocate, do you normally get the vision of a blue blazer-wearing republican? Well neither do I. And when thinking of your standard constitution-waving Tenther, pushing for states rights and less federal power, do you normally get the vision of a young progressive?

Of course not. The idea seems kinda weird.

But, it’s true. And it’s not just us kooky Californians either. Americans everywhere are breaking the stereotypes that the heartland holds dear.

And when it comes to weed, you can throw those stereotypes out.

STATES VS FEDS

A new national poll has discovered the Tenther in all of us. Americans, by a huge margin, support states’ rights and decentralized decision-making. Well, at least on one issue they do.

In a recent survey of likely voters, Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found 74% – yes, that’s nearly three-fourths of the country – believe that President Obama should respect laws in states where growing and selling marijuana is legal for medical purposes. Only 15% of those polled want to enforce federal law, under which medical marijuana use is illegal.

Ok, so maybe this was just a survey of likely democratic voters, right? Nope. The respondents were approximately one-third each – democrat, republican and independent. Every age and every demographic showed overwhelming support for the Tenther ideology – that the people of the states have the right to be left alone.

More than two-thirds of republicans support the idea, and three-quarters of democrats do too. Men and women equally favor leaving the decision to the states. And, while people under 34 years old were even more supportive – 81% in favor – even older Americans act like Tenthers from time to time too – 64% of those aged 65 and up want the feds to butt out.

It’s got to be a fluke – just one errant poll result, right?

Wrong.

Days later, Rasmussen Reports released another national poll on marijuana. Voters were asked this question, “Suppose the Food and Drug Administration denies approval for a particular drug. If a state government believes the drug has benefits in some circumstances, should the state be able to approve the sale of that drug in that state?”

That’s a pretty radical view, one might think, with a state government not just opposing a federal mandate, but actually facilitating mass defiance to it too.

Barely more than one-third of Americans – 35% – opposed such a position.

WE’RE ALL TENTHERS NOW?

If “radical” tends to imply a minority or fringe view, it appears to me that those who want federal control over marijuana hold a far more fringe view than those of us who want to leave it to the people of each state to determine – the Tenther view.

The real question, though, is this: Like Obama on gay marriage or Romney on health mandates, will the American people prove to be selective Tenthers – advocating decentralization only when it benefits them politically?

Become a member and support the TAC!

I don’t think so. In time, I have a feeling most of us will learn the value and benefit of making the difficult decisions close to home rather than having them made for us thousands of miles away.

For me, I certainly trust my neighbors, even the annoying ones, far more than I’ll ever trust those bought-off politicians in Washington D.C.

NOTE: The preceding was recorded live at the close of Tenther Radio: Episode 51 on June 13, 2012. TRX: Tenther Radio is broadcast every Wednesday evening at 9pm Eastern and 6pm Pacific. Host Michael Boldin, along with rotating guest hosts Jason Rink, Lesley Swann, Nick Hankoff and others talk with top experts, newsmakers, and tenther activists every week. Call the show with questions or comments at 213.785.7848 and stream the broadcast LIVE at radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com

The post America: Land of the Tenthers? appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

One late Saturday night, a pragmatist and an idealist walk into a bar. Both order pints of Guinness. Two fruit flies simultaneously plunge into the frothy heads of each beer.

The idealist glowers, curses and empties the contents of his glass on a nearby potted plant. The pragmatist, surveying his friend’s unhappiness, flicks the fruit fly out of the beer and drains the glass with a few hearty gulps. The idealist, returning to the bar with his empty glass, asks “Why the devil didn’t you get a new one?” The pragmatist smiles and points to the clock above the bar, “Last call was five minutes ago. Taps are closed until Monday.”

In 2010 ordinary American citizens, much alarmed at a big lurch towards statism, gave face and name to the Tea Party. Typical of midterm elections, the president’s party took a drubbing, but this one made exceptional by the open allegiance of the newly elected to Tea Party precepts of constitutionally limited government. Among the remarkable victories was Scott Brown, the first Republican elected by Bay Staters to the United States Senate since 1972, filling a seat vacated by the death of liberal icon Teddy Kennedy.

Now, two years later, we are reacquainted with Senator Brown through his re-election bid against Democrat Elizabeth “Fauxcohontas” Warren and have taken notice to flaws in the former’s voting record. As it turns out, Scottie is a moderate. His Club for Growth score is a median hugging 49%. Certainly a better power ranking than the 10% earned by that state’s senior senator, John Kerry, but not one that will win him an honorary tricorn hat.

What gives? Did the Council on Foreign Relations offer him eternal political life in exchange for a solemn vow against excessive Tentherism? Is the Tea Party dead and Scott Brown its pallbearer?

The answer should be obvious. At one time Massachusetts was known as the Cradle of Liberty. Now it’s the Wet Nurse of Nanny-Statism. It’s worth noting that the Massachusetts Senate rebuked the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 with a 32-1 vote. Indeed, little has changed.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky would have a better chance of succeeding Tom Brady as quarterback of the New England Patriots than getting elected to federal office in the Massachusetts. That Scott Brown’s CFG ranking is ten times more libertarian than his predecessor might not get him on the cover of Tea Party Today, but should be cause for reasonable optimism.

Become a member and support the TAC!

The pragmatic recognize that electoral victories are merely a symptom of voter frustration, and a century of progressive assaults on our Constitution will not be reversed by a few elections. Our mission, first and foremost, shall be to spread the gospel of liberty and localism.

In the long run, education more so than elections will prevent a Hunger Games-style dystopia. Constitutional literacy will save our country; Scott Brown, moderate Republican, will not.

Yes, elections still do matter. A lot. And flies will occasionally land in our beer. But I, for one, rather share a beer with a fly than have none at all.

The post Tea Partier with Training Wheels: Senator Scott Brown appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

In America, we no longer have the rule of law.  It has been replaced by the “rule of five politically-connected lawyers who hold lifetime appointments.”

This is just what Thomas Jefferson feared when he wrote this:

“the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary: an irresponsible body,  working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

According to the Founders’ Constitution, the Judiciary – or more precisely, the Supreme Court – was never meant to be what it has become.  Actually, let me rephrase that – into what the Supreme Court has made of itself.

Instead of acting as a “Supreme Court,” it now acts as “Supreme Law Giver.”

There were rumblings from the very beginning that this could happen, and it did not take long for the slow creep of expanding powers to eat away at the very fabric of the Constitution.

Early Court rulings, in the philosophy centralized power lover Alexander Hamilton, gave the courts powers never approved by the Founders and Ratifiers.  Five lawyers would now decide our fate and make law from the bench.

Constitution be damned.  That power still hangs over us like a black cloud today.

Following in this new tradition, 19th Century Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story became one the most nationalist judges in our early history.  He worked to further the supremacy of centralized government. He pushed Hamilton’s ideas of so-called “implied” and “resultant” powers in the Constitution, and expanded the power of the executive and federal judiciary even further. It is widely recognized that there is gaping hole in the legal system in terms of public funding (legal aid). Those who could previously obtain legal aid to pay for advice regarding their divorce or disputes regarding child arrangements may no longer meet the qualifying criteria for legal aid. If they cannot afford legal advice, a person can be left feeling that they do not know where to turn, and for cases of accidents or injuries when driving or riding a motorcycle, getting the best motorcycle accidents lawyer could be essential to solve these cases.

Woodrow Wilson understood what had happened over the years and stated, “The War between the States established … this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers.”

And so it did.

In the 1960s, Clinton Rossiter wrote something that haunts us to this day.  He said,

“The formula for congressional authority today reads: the commerce power + the war powers + the power to tax and spend for the general welfare x the loosest possible reading of the words ‘necessary and proper.’”

Under this formula, virtually nothing that is perceived to be of importance is beyond the control of the federal government.  The fact of the matter is that this was brought on by the tacit approval and promotion of the Supreme Court and their willing accomplices in Congress and the Executive Branch.

Once the Court established the precedent that they, and only they, could decide on what was constitutional, the stage was set for the expansion of the centralized government we have today.

Unchallenged precedent by the Supreme Court is the genesis of the growth of judicial tyranny in our everyday lives. They have become like “gods” that all must bow down before and seek their blessing to exercise any semblance of liberty and freedom.

Become a member and support the TAC!

There are no more “checks and balances” in the federal government.  Today, the final authority as to what the Constitution says or doesn’t say, and what the other two branches are allowed to get away with, is decided by five unaccountable, politically-connected lawyers – something the Founders would never have agreed too.

Then again, if you like how things have turned out, go ahead and kowtow before the Supreme Court. Beg  them to decide in your favor on anything you might think is unconstitutional.  But don’t be surprised when they say, “step away from the bench serf. We will decide what is Constitutional, not you.”

As for me, I will take up the cause of the 10th Amendment.  And with that, State Sovereignty and the right and the duty of people of the states to nullify and interpose against the federal government, but one thing is for sure and that is that you really need to be careful when looking for a motorcycle accidents lawyer and choosing one, because the quality of an attorney you choose can impact your case more than others you may have already considered. However, there are things you can do to reduce your chances of getting a bad deal, such as asking questions and making yourself available. Also, if you are unsure about the quality of an attorney and want to talk with a lawyer, you can find a list of lawyers and contact them directly. It’s always wise to get a copy of all the information and documents related to your case, as they can be useful if something happens in the future.

As Andrew Jackson was once rumored to say, the Supreme Court may have their opinion; now let them try and enforce it.

The post Rule of Law vs Rule by Lawyers appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Last week the Heritage Foundation hosted a speech delivered by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, entitled “Why Conservatives Should Fund and Support a Strong National Defense.” The event was the annual Jesse Helms Lecture, designed “to highlight America’s founding principles.” It was given as part of the Heritage Foundation’s Protect America Month.

The intent here is not necessarily to give a word by word rebuttal of the Heritage report and Kyl’s speech, but instead – to address the overarching themes of his speech.

The Heritage report is prefaced with an abstract, featuring Thomas Jefferson’s declaration that “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance…” This idea, misapplied, forms the foundation of Kyl’s thesis, as vigilance, much like the word defense, is stretched to mean overseas intervention and military budgets of grotesque proportions.

A quick note on terminology is important here. Kyl states early in his talk that “liberals and progressives have never been supportive of the imperative to preserve American sovereignty…” While the term sovereignty is sometimes used in a foreign policy context to denote independence, Kyl seems to use it as a synonym for the word security. He goes on to list three ways in which American “sovereignty” is put at risk, and each relates not to independence from international governmental organizations, but to issues commonly related to national security. They are: cuts to so-called defense, opposition to foreign intervention, and privacy concerns (he didn’t give details on this last item, citing too little time).

Before moving into Kyl’s full argument, it is important to point out the false dichotomy he presents for the audience. There is no fundamental difference in the foreign policy ideologies of conservative and progressive politicians, as judged by their actions. Practically speaking, the Obama foreign policy is the same as Bush’s, which is the same as Clinton’s, which is just like that of Bush before him, and so on. To be sure, progressive politicians often speak in more humble terms, but their actions – escalating drone strikes, tripling troop levels in Afghanistan, ignoring due process, and launching new wars – belie this rhetoric.

In his lecture, Kyl does not aim his criticism at liberals, but instead directs it at other Republicans. He warns of a “creeping sentiment within certain Republican circles that America is indeed in a period of decline, mostly due to runaway spending, and that we cannot, therefore, afford the kind of military we had in the past and should disengage from many areas of the world.” This is to say that these Republicans are beginning to reject the neoconservative dogma that has dominated U.S. policy for decades. Kyl laments this – but it’s a good thing.

Intervention is not conservative and it is not consistent with “America’s founding principles,” nor is intervention conducive to a “strong national defense,” in its true sense. For the United States, the 20th Century marked the rise of foreign intervention, and it was ushered in by progressives, notably Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, neither of whom was very conservative. Consider also that Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson – all progressives – were proponents of foreign military involvement. By and large, the foreign policy of the U.S. during its first century was far more humble, mirroring the advice from the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

Foreign entanglements, of the kind Kyl advocates, degrade the actual defense of the country in three ways. With troops stationed all over the planet they are more vulnerable to attack and, cannot adequately defend the U.S. The bombing of naval ships and foreign barracks provide examples of the former; and the fact that the U.S. military was better prepared to defend South Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Germany on 9/11 explains the latter. But the last, and most fundamental reason of all, is that intervention begets intervention by way of blowback. When the U.S. intervenes in the affairs of another country it necessarily creates enemies by choosing sides and killing civilians – even accidentally. Thus begins a cycle where the victims’ resentment builds, they retaliate, are attacked again, and still more seeds of blowback are sewn.

This is to say nothing of the economic price tag for what amounts to an empire. Kyl brings up the perennial argument over entitlements versus military spending, and suggests that cutting “defense” spending to accommodate entitlement funding would be “devastating to national security.” Reducing defense spending would likely be detrimental to security, but so much of the pentagon’s budget is dedicated not to actual defense, but instead is offensive in nature. Not a single one of the many wars now being fought is truly defensive, nor do the inhabitants of the targeted countries pose any credible threat to the U.S. mainland.

Kyl admits that “the fastest-growing part of the budget is in personnel costs, especially for health care.” This is all due to the very policies which he promotes. Personnel costs are higher and the price of healthcare continues to rise directly because the military is spread across the globe waging wars with no end in sight. Tens of thousands of wounded veterans, many of them burn victims and amputees, the hundreds of thousands suffering from traumatic brain injury, and the more than one hundred thousand on psychiatric drugs all cause spending to rise dramatically.

Like all good advocates of the state, Kyl uses the Orwellian term “interests” to supplement his argument. U.S. foreign policy has evolved significantly, perhaps beginning with Thomas Jefferson’s authorization to deploy troops to Tripoli in 1801. But with a military presence now in some 130 countries, virtually anything could be construed as part of “our national interest” and used to justify intervention. We must get away from this mentality – that everything that happens in the world deserves an immediate response from the U.S. military. It’s destructive, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s immoral.

But as things stand today, even ancillary issues are used to justify inserting the U.S. government into the affairs of other nations. Kyl laments the decision of several members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to reject a “resolution in support of the besieged Syrian people.” The resolution would have established as U.S. policy that “the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people cannot be realized so long as Bashar al-Assad remains in power and that he must step aside.” The reason it was rejected by those Republicans, he surmises, was because such a policy “might ultimately lead to taking some kind of action.”

In fact, the resolution would have only codified existing U.S. policy, as the U.S. State Department had already promised to fund the rebellion and provide communications equipment as a month prior to the aforementioned resolution. And, it is widely understood that many of the previous military conflicts began with resolutions and so-called “non-lethal aid.” Rarely is an all-out military invasion something that happens overnight. In practically all cases it stems from another Orwellian term: “diplomacy.”

In the twisted definition now used by war Hawks, “diplomacy” is no longer negotiations and attempts at non-violent solutions. It has now morphed into an aggressive process that involves sanctions, threats, blockades, and the deployment of troops, naval ships, and aircraft to further isolate and coerce the targeted parties into compliance. That so many Republicans refused to participate in this endeavor is to be celebrated, as most often it is not the political and military leaders that suffer from such “diplomacy,” but the people of the country who have no say in the matter.

In his final segment, Kyl invokes Jesse Helms, urging Americans to “demonstrate not only to ourselves, but to the world that as a nation we stand by American values—freedom, rule of law, sovereignty—both at home and abroad.” If this advice is to be taken seriously, and not meant merely as a platitude, Americans should reject the foreign policy shared by neoconservatives and progressives now being applied. It is indeed anathema to freedom and the rule of law, as the Patriot Act (also known as the “repeal the 4th Amendment act”), certain provisions in the NDAA, and everything the TSA has done in the last decade attest.

Become a member and support the TAC!

In the end, Kyl asks: “How do we determine the appropriate American leadership role?” Of course a rudimentary approach involves looking to the constitution. That document is very clear on how war is to be declared. That is the legal means, but it’s vague as to why it may be declared, or the moral reason. For the answer to this we must look to the principle of non-aggression for moral guidance. Murray Rothbard defined the non-aggression principle thusly: “No one may threaten or commit violence (‘aggress’) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.”  

In essence, this is the Golden Rule, and it should guide foreign policy; not some bastardized definition of “defense,” “interests,” or any other manipulated term to sterilize unjustified military force.

The post Refuting Heritage on Foreign Policy. appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Recently, as state and local governments have been passing legislation requiring non-compliance with the kidnapping provisions of the 2012 NDAA, a number of people who oppose NDAA have begun to attack these efforts to resist it – as little more than a sham.

Vince Brown, for example, gets the ball rolling with this:

“I don’t find the appeal here, isn’t all it says is that they will simply just sit back and watch the feds do what they want?”

Brian Ryman goes a little deeper:

“While the state of Virginia has passed what many feel to be the first significant blow against the NDAA , I have a few reservations about what is purported by some to be a victory. My main concern is that the bill has no provisions for Virginia state agencies to interpose themselves between the federal authorities and its citizens. This should be the focus of the legislation….”

The implication here is that unless there’s a state law passed requiring conflict – a state agency standoff vs a federal agency – which is dangerous indeed – then somehow there’s little to no value.

But is that really the case? Of course not. More later.

Tom Rankin takes it a step further, insisting that anything but physical pushback on the feds is not only worthless, but some kind of a political trick. Here’s what he had to say:

“Just how does this stop the Feds from enforcing NDAA. All it says is you can enforce NDAA in my state but I will not help you. This is pure bull. It is just feel good legislation that gets the public off the politicians ass. I am very disappointed in The Tenth Amendment Center and question it’s motives.”

Interesting.

I’ve often heard that converts to a new religion are commonly known to be more zealous than people raised in those same beliefs. I guess here at the TAC we’re finding the same thing in our own movement – for nullification.

The problem, though, is this – these people, while probably quite well-intentioned, are either being misdirected, or are just misinformed about the big picture.

NON-COMPLIANCE IS A BIG DEAL

To clarify, we should first define the word nullification. It is “any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null, void, or unenforceable in a specific area.”

Thomas Jefferson referred to nullification as the “moderate middle ground” – the effective path that lies between violent and bloody revolution on one hand and unlimited submission on the other.

With that in mind, we can recognize that 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. It 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 needed, and is almost never effective. 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.

When Virginia’s HB1160 was being debated, Delegate Bob Marshall gave a perspective on the importance of non-compliance when 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.”

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 without the help of the local sheriff or police departments. Refusing compliance is a big deal – and it will set the stage for others to do the same.

WWRPD?

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 – and unjust.

On one end of the spectrum, she didn’t call for her local friends to interpose on her behalf, using force and guns to arrest the progress of evil being waged against her. And, on the other end of the spectrum, she didn’t accept the notion of unlimited submission either.

Before refusing to comply, Rosa Parks didn’t first pass a law to physically stop people from violating her rights. She didn’t need to arrest an offending federal or state agent to move her cause forward.

Rosa Parks also didn’t put the fate of her liberty in the hands of the political system.

She didn’t simply comply 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.

Become a member and support the TAC!

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

When Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, she didn’t have any “teeth” in her action. Her non-compliance helped expand the growth of a massive movement which resulted in the change she sought.

Whether the issue is mandates, or indefinite detention, or the TSA, or anything in between – that’s our blueprint for freedom. I hope you’ll join us.

The post The Rosa Parks Method for Liberty appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

In 1850, when President Millard Fillmore signed the second “Fugitive Slave Act,” due process was under serious attack by the federal government.

The law compelled people of all states to “assist” federal marshals and their deputies with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves. It brought all trials involving alleged fugitive slaves under federal jurisdiction. It included large fines for anyone who aided a slave in their escape, even by simply giving them food or shelter.

On top of it, bounties were paid to commissioners in fugitive slave cases. $10 was paid if a person was sent back to slavery, and $5 if the person was allowed freedom. The federal government was paying people to capture other people and send them to slavery.

The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for alleged “slaves,” and made their testimony inadmissible in court. The written testimony of the supposed slave master, on the other hand, which could be presented to the court by slave hunters, was given preferential treatment.

STATE RESISTANCE

In response, Northern States intensified efforts to pass what were known as “personal liberty laws.” These had already been growing over time in response to the original Fugitive Slave Act years earlier.

Vermont passed a “Habeas Corpus Law,” requiring state judicial and law enforcement officials to actually help captured fugitive slaves there. Massachusetts took a really strong stand – and passed a law that provided for kidnapping charges to anyone trying to use these “indefinite detention” provisions of the fugitive slave act.

No federal agent was charged with kidnapping in Massachusetts, though. But, this was only because no escapee was ever captured for return after the law was passed. The state response was working.

In fact, Northern states were so successful overall that when South Carolina seceded ten years later the people there named this as one of their primary reasons for leaving the Union. From their publicly-released “Declaration of Causes,” was this:

“The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the [Fugitive Slave Acts] or render useless any attempt to execute them…”

NDAA: THE ROAD BACKWARDS

In 1942, FDR signed an executive order which authorized the creation of military zones “from which any or all persons may be excluded.”

This led to the roundup of around 110,000 Japanese-Americans and Japanese citizens living here in California and along the West Coast. Without due process to assist them, these people were relocated and sent to internment camps. Many more were classified as “enemy aliens” and subjected to increased restrictions.

Like the Fugitive Slave Acts and Japanese mass internment, the federal government has again taken new powers never intended under the Constitution. Under sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, the feds again claim the power to classify people in such a way that they no longer have rights.

President Obama and Congress have dropped the terms “fugitive slave” and “enemy alien.” Instead, they use “suspected terrorist” as a way to eliminate due process these days.

RESISTANCE TODAY

Today, in the spirit of the 19th century Personal Liberty Laws, states and local communities around the country are taking action against NDAA detention powers. Virginia recently became the first state in the country to pass a law refusing compliance with or assistance to federal agents carrying out detentions without due process against citizens of that state. Arizona’s legislature just passed a similar bill. And a number of other states are working on the same.

But, it’s not just states. More than ten local communities are on board too. For example, up north in Fairfax, CA, they passed legislation which says that they will:

“Instruct all our Town of Fairfax agencies to decline requests by federal agencies acting under detention powers granted by the NDAA that could infringe upon residents’ freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, or rights to counsel.”

Become a member and support the TAC!

JUST THE BEGINNING

When Northern States protected habeas corpus against federal encroachments in the 19th century, they were doing their duty to protect liberty and the Constitution. Today, states and local communities are doing the same.

They can and should serve as a powerful check on federal power. In fact, the framers counted on it. It’s all about local actions. As Democrats and Republicans continue to work together in DC to take away our rights, it’s our local communities who must and will rise up to save them.

The post An Effective Method to Restore Due Process appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

“Mongering fear…”

That’s what establishment hawks Charles Stimson and David Rivkin say the Tenth Amendment Center and other organizations are doing by pushing back against the new “indefinite detention” powers in Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.

But, even in the face of yet another unconstitutional federal act, the People of the United States just gained an important ally in defense of their Constitution: the Commonwealth of Virginia, and state employees in particular.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell just signed into law House Bill 1160 (HB1160), which would prohibit state agencies from participating in unconstitutional detentions under the NDAA.

Stimson and Rivkin are mighty upset about this too. Their recent Washington Post op-ed on the issue is so filled with errors, distortions and half-truths (I’m being generous with the latter), that their irritation about the bill either clouded their ability to read, or shows they’re little more than propagandists for yet more unlimited executive power.

BIG FLAWS

I’m going to focus on two big flaws in their analysis which seriously damage their credibility on the issue. First, there’s this:

“Virginia’s legislature recently passed a bill that forbids state employees, including police and members of the National Guard, from participating in the investigation, surveillance, detention or arrest of any suspected member of al-Qaeda or its affiliates, if that suspect is a U.S. citizen.”

Wrong.

HB1160 does not, as the authors claim, forbid state agency participation of “any suspected member….if that suspect is a U.S. citizen.” To make such a statement would require a reader of the bill to completely miss the extremely important qualifier, which reads as follows:

….if such aid would knowingly place [applicable state agents] in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, any provision of the Code of Virginia, any act of the General Assembly, or any regulation of the Virginia Administrative Code…

Think about that. Assistance in investigation, surveillance, detention or arrest is still permitted, as long as such assistance complies with the Constitution of the United States.

Knowingly violating the Constitution is what is prohibited.

Are Stimson and Rivkin in favor of requiring people to “knowingly” violate the Constitution? Are they just too busy to read the full text of a one-page bill? Or, are they intentionally leaving off this important qualifier from the bill itself in order to frighten you into thinking that states like Virginia (and soon others too) are dangerous?

If it’s the latter, that’s a textbook case of fear mongering in my opinion.

Next on the chopping block is this:

…Although the federal government has no inherent constitutional right to compel state officials to help in combating al-Qaeda, since 9/11 it has funneled billions of dollars to all states that require fulsome cooperation from state law enforcement authorities. Meanwhile, state National Guard forces, when deployed overseas, are subject to federal control. For these reasons, Virginia’s legislation violates the federal law….

Both are wrong, but the big fallacy here is the latter. It’s so distorted that it bears repeating:

Meanwhile, state National Guard forces, when deployed overseas, are subject to federal control.

Are they claiming that HB1160 is trying to prevent Virginia’s National Guard forces from acting when under federal control? Seems so. But this is totally misleading. If I could get into the minds of the authors, I’d suspect I’d see a little fear mongering as their motivation, but who am I to say?

Anyway, here’s the real deal, from the text of the actual bill. The people that HB1160 applies to are a person of specific state agencies…

…or member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty

When national guard troops have been called up by the federal government, they are no longer on “official state duty,” they are on official federal duty. So, of course they’d no longer be under the purview of HB1160. This language was included for just that reason.

Become a member and support the TAC!

Did our two authors just miss that part of the sentence, or did they intentionally ignore it? Either way, this is elementary stuff, and these two have some reading to do.

NOT RELIABLE

On the NDAA itself, I do recognize that Stimson and Rivkin made a number of statements about its supposed constitutionality. But, my opinion is this: If they can’t even get these things right about a one-page bill, how can anyone trust them to provide correct constitutional analysis of a bill far longer?

I sure don’t.

The post Mongering Fear: The Establishment Attacks appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

I’ve got a message for Jan Brewer – and it’s pretty simple.  So here goes.

Pointing fingers and talking tough about some issues is one thing.  ACTING tough – that’s another thing altogether.

This week, as you travelled to Washington DC, you made this statement – “I have a duty and obligation to defend the people of Arizona – especially when the federal government fails to do their job.”

You certainly do have a duty and an obligation.  But the time for tough talk, Governor Brewer, is over.  The time to act is upon you.

AN IMPORTANT BILL ON YOUR DESK

When you return from Washington DC this week, you’ll find that you have an extremely important bill on your desk – awaiting your signature.  Senate Bill 1182 was passed by wide margins in your state’s legislature, 34-22 in the House and 20-8 in the Senate.

What does this bill do?  Well it’s pretty important stuff.  It says this:

This state and any agency of this state shall not provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the national defense authorization act of 2012, Public Law 112-81, against any citizen of the United States.

Once you sign this bill into law, it will also make it a criminal offense for any public officer, employee or agent of the state of Arizona to make any attempt to assist in such federal kidnapping.

If you think it’s hyperbole to use the word “kidnapping” to describe the so-called “indefinite detention” provisions of the NDAA, think again.  When you remove due process from the equation, “indefinite detention” is really nothing more than government-sanctioned kidnapping.

The Constitution is pretty straightforward when it comes to due process – and these newly-claimed federal powers are nothing short of an abomination on the limits that the Founding Fathers gave us.

Like you said, you do “have a duty and obligation to defend the people of Arizona” – and that bill sitting on your desk right now is an opportunity for you to do so.

CONCERNS

But, I’m a little concerned that you don’t really mean what you say when you talk about defending the People of Arizona.  For example, in 2010 the People of your state voted to approve a new medical marijuana program.  The founders were clear that such decisions would be under the purview of the people of each state, not the federal government.  But the feds on this issue, like on virtually everything else, have been interfering with the people’s choices for far too long.

With that vote, the people of your state took a major step towards turning things around and putting the decision-making where it rightfully belongs.

So what did you do?  Well, you sued your own state in federal court to stop the people of Arizona from implementing the law they rightfully passed.  And now you complain about the feds suing you?  We can talk about that inconsistency another time.  For now, let’s focus on moving forward and doing what’s right.

For any true constitutionalist, there is an important principle at stake here, one that you appear to be willing to sacrifice because you disagreed with the policy chosen by Arizona’s voters.  The federal government is only authorized to do what has been delegated to it in the Constitution…and nothing more.  Period.

DUTY TO THE CONSTITUTION

It doesn’t matter if you like or dislike the policies – your duty and obligation – the oath you swore – means you need to help the people of your state do what they’ve set out to do.  Reject unconstitutional federal acts.

Whether those federal usurpations of power cover weed or “indefinite detention,” the end result is the same.  Your duty to the people of your state – and to the Constitution – is to do everything in your power to stop anyone and everyone from violating their rights.  That is, unless you prefer the Nancy Pelosi version of the Constitution and believe that all federal law is “supreme.”

So which is it, Governor Brewer?  Nancy Pelosi’s constitution or James Madison’s?

The time for tough talk, ma’am, is over.  The time for duty is now.  It’s not next year, and not after the next election.  It’s not next month and not next week.  The time for you to step up and act is today, not tomorrow, right now.

A simple stroke of the pen, and you’ve done your duty.

Sign the bill Governor Brewer, and prove to Arizona and to the world that you’re more than just a bunch of tough talk or a wagging finger.  Prove to all of us that you’re a constitutional hero.

Your moment is now.

ACTION ITEM FOR ARIZONA

If you live in Arizona, contact Gov. Brewer now.

Politely, but firmly, ask her to sign SB1182. Remind her that she has a duty to protect and defend the Constitution and an obligation to the people of Arizona. Tell her that the language in sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA is too vague and undefined to leave to chance. The federal government simply cannot be allowed to possess even a hint of such power.

You can find contact information for the governor’s office HERE.

ACTION ITEMS FOR THE REST OF THE COUNTRY

If you do not live in Arizona, you should still contact Brewer and tell her the rest of the country is watching. Arizona has the opportunity to step up as a leader in protecting the most basic freedom and liberties that we cherish as Americans.

If your state, county or city has not taken steps to stop kidnapping under the NDAA, you can find model Liberty Preservation Act legislation that you can propose to your local politicians HERE.

To track NDAA nullification legislation across the U.S., click HERE.

The post Jan Brewer: Constitutionalist or Pelosi Supporter? appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

In this special edition of Tenther Radio, Michael Boldin and Jason Rink are joined by Rob Natelson for a lesson on Habeas Corpus. Natelson is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado’s Independence Institute.

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Natelson explains What habeas corpus is – and why it is important. He gives us an overview of the Founders’ view of habeas corpus, and specifically, the Constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus. Also discussed are Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 – and why this should be of great concern to those who support liberty – and the writ of habeas corpus.

Rob also discusses in more detail what he wrote in his book, The Original Constitution – “American state habeas statutes in force during the founding era sometimes protected only “citizens” However, the federal constitutional right was defined by English common law, and therefore extended to some non-citizens” – and the important 2008 Supreme Court case, Boumediene v. Bush.

Finally, Natelson gives us his opinion of St. George Tucker’s view in 1803 that “Habeas corpus cannot be suspended, unless in cases of actual rebellion or invasion. A suspension under any other circumstances, whatever might be the pretext, would be unconstitutional, and consequently must be disregarded by those whose duty it is to grant the writ.”

The post A Special Lesson on Habeas Corpus appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.