Tenth Amendment Center: Constitutional Conversation

The life of a liberty activist is not always the easiest road to follow. Sticking to principles and not simply selling out to the highest bidder can make it even tougher. We work long, long hours and get attacked from all sides of the political spectrum.

Just by keeping the message the same, we see shifts over who leads those attacks too. For example, during the Bush years, we’d often get conservatives attacking us for opposing his unconstitutional policies.

PEOPLE REALLY SAY THIS STUFF

We hear things like –

“Are you with the terrorists? Bush is just trying to keep us safe. That’s his job!”

Or the classic…

“You don’t like it here? Move to Cuba, commie!”

These days, it’s the same kind of message, just a little moved around…

“”He’s not waging a ‘war’ – he’s trying to save those people in Libya from a horrible dictator!”

“You don’t like the Affordable Care Act…what, do you want black people banned from lunch counters, too?”

Seriously. These are emails and comments we received. But look, I’m not complaining. I’m just saying that at times it is motivational to hear and read these things – from both average people and the media. And, at other times, especially after a week of 18 hour workdays, it can be quite draining.

Why? Because with that kind of ignorant partisan-hackery being quite common – sometimes things seem, well…insurmountable. Pointless. Like, why not join with the masses, do a little shopping, enjoy the game, and refer to every single political conversation as “off limits” because we don’t want to think about it or deal with it.

A SUPPORT SYSTEM

No, that kind of thought doesn’t happen real often, but with most people who slug it out day in and day out – dragging through the mud pits against the monster government that exists today – such thoughts certainly come up from time to time.

What’s my point? Without a support system – loving friends and family to back up our work – constantly pushing forward could never really happen.

George Mason had his wife Ann. Henry David Thoreau had great friends in Ellery and Harrison. Rosa Parks had her husband Raymond.

Today, people like Tom Woods have a foundation as solid as a rock with Heather. Jim Babka gets endless support from Susanne. Ron Paul has the backbone of an amazing woman like Carol.

And my luck personally has been unbelievable – to have good friends who either directly support my work – or tolerate my endless ramblings about it. But no one, and I mean no one, has provided me more strength, support, motivation and success than my partner for life, Sarah.

Being a special day, her birthday that is, tonight, I want to celebrate her support and love for me and the work I do. And with that, I think it’s essential for us to thank all the amazing people like Sarah out there – whether their name is Heather, Harrison, Susanne, or Raymond – this great movement for liberty couldn’t exist without you.

OUR FAMILY

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we consider each and every one of you part of our family. Our community is strong – and growing stronger each year. This could never happen without you.

Those of you who only read our website, or visit our YouTube or Facebook channels – you are extremely important to us. Every one of you on our national team – and every single state and local coordinator for us here at the Tenth Amendment Center – your participation has been essential. Members – old and new – bloggers and columnists, listeners to this show. Every one of you and more.

THANK YOU!

Each one of you plays a vital role – in moving this ship forward.

No matter what they throw at us – forward is the only direction we know. Thank you Sarah, and all of you who take part in your own way – for helping make this happen.

Become a member and support the TAC!

So, to all of you non-activists out there – spouses, significant others, friends and family – each and every one of you is extremely important.

The next time you have to hear one of us talk endlessly about some liberty-oriented issue that you consider to be unimportant, obscure, or even just downright boring…the next time you have to help one of us endure long work days with little sleep, stress, deadlines, personal attacks – and more – please remember this:

You are appreciated. More than you likely could ever know.

Thank you.

The post Liberty with a Backbone appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

How often have you heard the term “middle ground” used in news reports, op-eds, on the radio, TV, and in social media? Okay, that’s a rhetorical question. In fact, this oft-mentioned and praised term has been bandied about as though it was handed down to us on stone tablets. And it often goes by a more frequently used term: compromise. But I’ll refer to the term middle ground here, because it is something we can visualize. It’s ground, don’tchya know—just like the other two “grounds” that aren’t referred to as such: “left” and “right”. But it’s hallowed ground. When we reach middle ground, we are admired by the vast middle grounders in society. We are enlightened. We have attained nirvana.

The term middle ground is most often used in the political sphere, but it is not solid ground. The only solid ground in this Republic is the ground that was formed by the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries, who didn’t sacrifice so much only to have it become a vain exercise decades later. They didn’t create a nation that would become another England in so many ways, from encroaching on people’s liberties, to excessive taxation, and seeking to control other nations. By becoming middle grounders, we’ve become ungrounded.

We’ve been sold a bill of goods over the decades, and most of us have come to savor those goods, which take the form of an imperial presidency, high taxation, reduced civil liberties, welfare, ad nauseum. We will accept mandated toilets, light bulbs, windows, auto standards, etc., as long as we aren’t hassled too much in our daily activities, as long as these mandates are “hidden” from us, buried in the regulations and duties imposed on businesses that serve us. We have less liberty, but hey, we’re safer.

I’ve found that there are three main impediments to the effective restoration of our Republican form of government. The first is a populace ignorant of the founding principles of our Republic, as well as the principles that informed the Founding Fathers. Next is the outgrowth of that ignorance: our elected officials, practically all of whom forget, in daily practice, what country they are in. (They would be perfectly at home in any European socialist wonderland.) The last impediment is our income tax system, especially where the federal government found it to their advantage—not ours’ mind you—to have an income tax (a tax on our labor) withheld from our paychecks. This mandated, legalized pilferage has grown the federal government to a size that could not have been contemplated by the Founding Fathers, and as a result of this funding and growth, our freedoms have eroded.

The bigger a central government becomes, the more it takes from the periphery – the states and the people – to maintain its hegemony.

Many will dismiss this article as being “out there,” as not being middle groundish, but in so doing they  make my point. And anyway, I couldn’t care less. I reference below the Introduction to the 1974 book: “Voices of the American Revolution,” by the People’s Bicentennial Commission. Reprinted in that book is an Associated Press release from the late 1960s:

“Only one person out of 50 approached on Miami streets by a reporter agreed to sign a typed copy of the Declaration of Independence. Two called it ‘commie junk,’ one threatened to call the police, and another warned: ‘Be careful who you show that kind of antigovernment stuff to, buddy.’

Comments from those who took the trouble to read the first three paragraphs:

‘This is the work of a raver.’

Become a member and support the TAC!

If anyone thinks our situation has improved since then, all they need to do is hear the responses to questions Jay Leno asks in his candid street interviews.

The middle ground is a meaningless ground. It is a creation of those who muddle the issue of whether the federal government can do whatever it wants, or if it has to operate within its Constitutional constraints, specifically outlined in Article 1, Section 8 and buttressed by the Tenth Amendment. These muddlers or middlers are either disingenuous, or they are clueless. They either want the federal government to ignore the Constitution, or they want the federal government to assume extra powers because it is for the “good of the people.” (And it scores “I care” points for e politicians when it comes time for reelection.)

The middle ground is not solid ground. It lies on a fault. And the fault is ours.

“Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another – too often ending in the loss of both.”

The post The Middle Ground is Dangerous appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Should we Rely on 9 People in Black Dresses to Save Us?

NOTE: Michael Boldin will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! Philadelphia. Get tickets HERE – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

*******

Now that the Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of several parts of the “Obamacare” health care package, plenty of opponents are saying that there’s now a chance to get it overturned.

How big of a chance? I think – Almost none.

The unelected, unaccountable, politically-connected lawyers which make up the Supreme Court have done an absolutely horrible job of upholding the Constitution. In fact, from 1937-1995 the Supreme Court didn’t rule one single congressional act to be outside of their constitutional limits. 60 years – they ruled absolutely nothing unconstitutional, and that included much of the new deal and all of the Great society. Since that time, overruling Congress has been a rare occurrence, at best.

Not a good track record at all.

At times, I would argue that the Supremes have actually created most of the problems we face today. Why? Because they don’t like overturning their own decisions either. One ruling expands federal power, and the next one almost always seems to be based off the previous.

Bad building blocks make for a dangerous foundation.

And on top of it all, because of the way things have worked in this country for a long time, most people believe that they only have 3 options to stop federal power –

1) protesting and marching on DC in the hopes that federal politicians will limit their own power

Sorry to break this to you, but it ain’t working.

For over 100 years, federal power has been on one path, and one path alone. It doesn’t matter which political party has been in charge in DC or which individual has been president – federal power always grows and your liberty is always less.

George Will wrote in a column recently that “if the court were to ratify Congress’ disregard for settled contract law, Congress’ power to compel contractual relations would have no logical stopping point. Which is why this case is the last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government.”

Sorry George, you’re wrong. We’ve been there for a long time already.

When the federal government claims the power to determine the extent of its own powers – unlimited government is already here.

Now if you happen to think, for some crazy reason, that claiming the power to tell you what size toilet you can have, what kind of light bulb you can own, or what kind of plant you can grow in your backyard it NOT unlimited power, it’s just a matter of time before politicians decide to start using the power they already have to do things that YOU consider unlimited. It’s just a matter of time.

So, as the last 100+ years of nearly incessant growth of federal power proves to us already, even IF the supremes do the rare thing and rule against Congress, in a decade that’ll be just a blip.

Without changing strategies – and stopping the insanity of going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal government – the freight train to totalitarianism will be unstoppable.

Instead of begging, yet again, federal politicians to limit their own power, how about something different?

That’s what we’ll be educating people about at Nullify Now! Philadelphia on March 31st. Multiple speakers and experts will teach you about what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison advised when 2 or more branches of the federal government attack the constitution and your liberty.

The States. They not only have a right, but a duty, to stand up and say NO to unconstitutional federal acts. Most of what the feds do qualifies.

Please join us in Philly on March 31st – you won’t just be educated. You’ll be empowered.

https://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/

The post On Mandates, and Everything Else, Don’t Count on the Courts! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

United States Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta caused quite a stir last week (March, 2012) when he took the position that no approval from Congress is necessary to take offensive military action against Syria. He indicated the administration would make international approval a priority, with consultation with Congress a secondary consideration.

Every day, it feels more and more like we live in what comes very close to being an elected dictatorship.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) asked the Secretary specifically, “Do you think you can act without Congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria?”

He was visibly quite taken aback when Panetta responded.

“Our goal would be to seek international permission, and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this — whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress…I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

The defense secretary made it clear to the senator that the primary objective would be to first secure international approval for military action, and then tell the Congress what they might decide to do, after which the administration would consider asking for congressional approval.

After Sessions expressed  his complete dismay at the secretary’s clear intent to exclude Congress, which possess sole constitutional authority to declare war, from the decision making process, Panetta defended his position.

“I’ve also served with Republican presidents and Democratic presidents who always reserved the right to defend this country if necessary.”

Secretary Panetta correctly asserts that every president has rightfully reserved the authority to defend this country, if necessary. But I would also argue that a no-fly zone, or any other offensive military action in Syria, is far from necessary to defend the United States.

As might be expected, there was no shortage of criticism from Republicans, much of it aimed at the administration for  seeking international permission rather than the president usurping Congress’ constitutionally delegated war powers. I won’t name names, but many Republicans, who either pretended to be outraged or were genuinely upset, had no issues at all with previous Republican administrations using the military for offensive wars without prior permission from Congress.

But that’s another article…

Frankly, what surprises me is not Panetta’s claim that the president has unlimited authority to wage war without Congressional approval. Lots of presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, have claimed that authority, at least since Truman’s decision to intervene in the Korean War without consulting Congress. What surprises me is that anyone in the Obama administration still feels obligated to provide any kind of legal cover.

Yet Secretary Panetta did bother to offer a up a fig leaf, asserting that the president has the right to defend this country without obtaining prior permission from Congress. I do think it is worth analyzing this statement, since it can illustrate something about what powers the Constitution actually delegates to the federal government when it comes to waging defensive war.

So was Panetta correct about a president’s right to defend this country without permission from Congress?

The Short Answer is, yes.

I’m unaware of any reliable constitutional scholar who would deny that the president is empowered by the Constitution to repel an invasion of U.S. territory. In their book, Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush, Kevin Gutzman and Tom Woods explain the Framers’ intent.

“Although the Constitution withholds from the president the power to commence hostilities, the Framers did envision a defensive presidential power to respond to attacks in extreme cases that will admit of no delay.”

However, equating the initiation of a no-fly zone, air strikes against foreign military targets, or the commitment of ground forces, however small or covert, in a country located on the other side of the planet with “defending” our country is simply “rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts.”, as Jeremy Bentham once described a different set of ideas I happen to embrace.

Even if the Assad regime, or the insurgents who might overthrow it, presented a clear and present danger to the United States, that would hardly justify military action without a declaration of war from Congress. As Kevin Gutzman and Tom Woods pointed out in the same chapter of their book, “Even when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt did not retaliate on his own authority but went to Congress for a declaration of war.”

There is no constitutional basis whatsoever for engaging in offensive warfare unless the decision to do so is made by Congress. For a more detailed examination of this question, I highly recommend reading constitutional scholar, Robert G. Natelson’s article, “Obama’s Libyan Operations are Unconstitutional”. His piece systematically dismantles the flimsy arguments of those who would try to portray Obama’s actions in Libya as somehow “less than war”, or an attack on Syria as a defensive operation.

Even though it appears that U.S. military action in Syria may be off the table for now, it’s still important to examine the arguments surrounding this conflict and previous ones as well. When arguments are made in support of unconstitutional wars in the future, those of us who wish to support and defend the Constitution can be better prepared to explain and articulate the very limited war powers delegated to the executive branch, in order to educate others who may still be on the fence.

What Do We Do About it?

And for those who do still care about the Constitution and the rule of law, the next question must be, “What then do we do about it when those in power simply refuse to abide by the Constitution?”.

I’m personally convinced that the internal checks and balances built into the federal government broke down long ago and are, for all practical purposes, useless at this point in history. The three branches of the federal government conspire to usurp more power at least as often as they act to limit each other’s power. That’s why many concerned citizens, frustrated by the failure of elections to arrest the progress of tyranny year after year, insist that there’s just going to have to be a revolution at some point. But the federal system established by the Constitution provides at least one final structural protection against tyranny that does not involve popular resistance, secession or full scale revolution. That protection comes from the power of the states.

In his “Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798”, Judge Abel P. Upshur asked the question, “Is there, or is there not, any principle in the Constitution of the United States, by which the States may resist the usurpations of the Federal Government; or are such usurpations to be resisted only by revolution?”

I certainly believe that there is such a conservative principle in the Constitution, otherwise I would not be writing this. And thankfully, the Tenth Amendment Center has been providing model legislation for several years, specifically designed to help state legislators make use of that conservative principle, otherwise known as state nullification.

But can state nullification provide an effective check against an out of control president determined to wage unconstitutional wars? I certainly believe it can. But in order to work, it requires the people of the several states to shift their focus from Washington, D.C. to their state capitals.

Defend the Guard legislation is designed to reassert the authority of governors over their Army and Air National Guard troops. Many people are unaware of the enormous role played by Army and Air National Guard in overseas military operations, without which the occupation of countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan would be virtually impossible.

Constitutional Homeland Security

Under the Constitution, the organized militia (now called the National Guard after the 1903 Dick Act) may only be called into duty by the federal government in three specific situations. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the Congress is given the power to pass laws for “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

The organized militia was intended by the Founders and Ratifiers to be defense force and nothing more. Deployments outside the country were not considered, and neither were internal deployments in pursuance of powers that were not delegated to the federal government.

Congress has passed numerous laws in the past 100 years giving the federal government additional authority not mentioned in the Constitution. But without amendment, altering the enumerated powers by legislative fiat is, in and of itself, unconstitutional. Campaigns in states around the country are working to reassert the authority of governors over guard troops.

Become a member and support the TAC!

But that’s not all. Other state nullification bills designed to limit the power of the presidency have been introduced as well. The Liberty Preservation Act, for example, is a state-level response to constitutional violations in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

In many ways, resistance to executive usurpation and tyranny has just begun at the state level. But make no mistake, the struggle is on, and it mustn’t cease. Rather, it must be escalated. Because as much as many of us would like to believe that Congress will suddenly grow a spine, or that the federal judiciary will rein in the imperial presidency sometime soon, such a hope is unrealistic at best.

The states on the other hand, haven’t been completely subordinated, and it’s through them that We the People still have a chance to prevent Caesar from completing his crossing of the Rubicon.

The post Executive War Powers Have Strict Constitutional Limits appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

“I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012”

Amazingly, these words are from United States Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a New York Times article entitled ‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World.

The article goes on to quote a number of “Law Scholars”, Professors, Foreign Judges and our own Supreme Court Justices, all lamenting that our Constitution is out of touch with the modern world.

One may dismiss the above quote coming from Ginsburg, a dedicated Socialist who worked for the A.C.L.U., has advocated the use of foreign law in shaping her opinions and has shown little respect for our Constitution throughout her career.

However, her  fellow Justice, the supposedly ultra-conservative and strict constructionist Antonin Scalia is quoted as saying “ The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours…we guarantee freedom of speech and of the press, big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protest, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”  All I can think of saying is, Holy C&@p!

It is very frightening that these “reputable” scholars and Justices do not understand the meaning and intent of the Constitution they have sworn to honor and uphold.  The drafters and ratifiers would be appalled at how the Supreme Court has “interpreted” a document meant to secure the rights of the people, not grant rights.

These scholars seem to forget that thirteen individual and sovereign entities declared independence and fought a long bloody war to secure that independence against a tyrannical central government.  These States created and then delegated certain limited and enumerated powers to their own central government in the hopes of securing the blessings of “Life, liberty and property (happiness)” to them and their posterity.

The contentious debates during the State ratifying conventions were replete with concerns that they were delegating too much power to the central government. It was only because a “Bill of Rights” was promised to allay those concerns and …”in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the (federal governments) power that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added” that the Constitution was even ratified, and only by three votes in New York!

James Madison in Federalist number Forty-Five states: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Become a member and support the TAC!

Most scholars seem to forget that there were thirteen individual Constitutions already guaranteeing “freedom of press, religion, speech, fair trials, and the right to keep and bear arms” long before the United States Constitution came into being. It was these individual and sovereign states and their constitutions, created by the people that protected their individual rights and liberties, not the United States Constitution or Federal government because neither were yet created!

The United States Constitution was eventually adopted by the people of those States as a means to secure the liberties of the States united.  The “scholars” quoted in the article do not seem to understand that the created cannot be greater than the creator. The States created the Federal government and its Constitution to protect their interest, not the rest of the worlds as some may believe. In fact, who cares what they think anyway.

NOTE: The preceding was recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 37 on February 29, 2012. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link.

The post Yes, They DO Hate the Constitution! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

When the Tenth Amendment Center co-hosted three events at CPAC in DC this month, the number one question we heard from people when talking amongst the crowds was this…

“The 10th amendment.  hmmmm…which one is THAT?”

Seriously?  Yup.  Over and over.  And over.  We heard the same question.  At first, with all the Tenther hype coming from people like Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and other mainstream conservatives, and the fact that at a recent Fox News/YouTube debate, the 10th Amendment was the highest requested question from conservatives around the country, I thought people were joking.  Or, maybe they were testing us to see if we knew what we were talking about.

But no, I was wrong.  A large number of the people we interacted with at the biggest and most mainstream conservative event in the country had no clue what the 10th Amendment even is.

And they wonder how this country could end up with someone like Barack Obama?  Yeah, well, that’s another column altogether.

After being asked that same question about the 10th a dozen or so times, I decided to give a much simpler reply.  Like this – “The 10th Amendment is the one that says that feds are only allowed to do certain stuff.  That stuff is in the Constitution.  Everything else is left to each of the states as we the people decide.”

That got some really positive responses.  Good, because it’s true.

PRACTICAL EXAMPLES

After I got home to Los Angeles, I started to think about that question more and more  And yes, while the basic principle I shared with people in DC is true, I recognize that people want and need to see practical examples of how something like this is actually playing out.

Talking about how things “should be” is one thing.  But sharing examples of how people are taking action on constitutional issues right now is far more powerful – in my opinion.

When it comes to the Constitutional “rule of construction” known as the 10th Amendment, and actions being taken around the country to reject federal laws, regulations and mandates enacted outside the scope of their constitutional limits – there are loads of examples to share.

In a quick one-on-one conversation, I’ll still continue to give my short version answer about the 10th, but in a forum like this, there’s a great opportunity to share a bit more.  Like this….

“The 10th amendment is the one that says the feds can only do the few things allowed to them in the Constitution.  And…that means people like you are empowered to do something about it when federal politicians violate those rules.  In fact, people around the country are doing something about issues all across the political spectrum right now.  They’re standing up and saying something that you and I should be saying to DC every single day…”

NO!

That’s right.  A law passed outside the limits of the Constitution is no law at all.  It’s an act of usurpation.  And when the federal government passes “laws,” regulations…and mandates that aren’t authorized by the Constitution, you are not bound to obey them!

HAPPENING RIGHT NOW

Being early in the year, this is the time when state legislatures are working with people to find ways to say NO to Washington DC.  Here are some of what I consider to be the biggest and best examples happening around the country today.

1. Banning Health Insurance Mandates

Last fall, 66% of Ohio voters, and a majority of every single political demographic, approved Issue 3 – the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment.  This state constitutional amendment says that “no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.”

Ohio is the 10th state to pass something along these lines – a Health Care Freedom Act.  And there are six other states considering similar measures already this year.

Keep track of all the activity on this front here:

2. Rejecting Indefinite Detention

Ten years ago, if you would’ve called the Patriot Act “moderate,” I probably would have puked.  But in comparison to what Barack Obama signed into “law” on December 31, 2011 – primarily sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act – that Bush-era tragedy for American liberty is mild.

When due process is eliminated, these so-called “indefinite detentions” are little more than government-sanctioned kidnapping.  And, personally, I believe any person who kidnaps should get some serious ramifications – whether they work for the government or not.

Tennessee is currently considering a bill that would do just that – sanction federal agents with kidnapping charges in that state.  Other states are taking the position that they will provide absolutely zero material support in any way with the federal government on this issue.  The Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill which would make law that no agent of the Commonwealth could participate in supporting the Feds in arrest without due process.  The vote on that bill?  A whopping 96-4.

So far a total of six states are considering similar bills, what we call in our model legislation here at the Tenth Amendment Center, the Liberty Preservation Act.

Harder to tame than a willful statehouse might be a cluster of counties, towns and cities, each one individually working to Nullify these new kidnapping powers through local law. In just days, a number of localities began to consider similar legislation, and already seven have passed – most recently, Northampton, Mass.

Expect many more to join them soon.  Follow the activity here:

3. Advancing Constitutional Money

With the economy coming apart at the seams, a growing number of people would like to see Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution followed.  It states that “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

Seems pretty straightforward.  But this hasn’t been followed in ages.

Following Utah’s lead from last year, five other states are working on legislation to allow sound money to actually be used without sanction.  And while this is really just scratching the surface, it’s moving faster than waiting for Washington DC to somehow give up its power to inflate and bail their friends out.

Stay informed of progress on Constitutional Tender Acts here:

THERE’S PLENTY MORE

Rejecting mandates, restoring due process, and supporting sound money.  These are just three important issues that define what’s happening in the Tenther Movement today.  But there’s so much more.  There are states around the country that are considering similar actions on issues like 4th Amendment violations by the TSA, to 2nd Amendment violations by the BATF.

From mandates to milk. From weed to wars without declaration. And everything in between. Very little of what the federal government does today is authorized by the Constitution.

But even though the establishment politicians and establishment media will never tell you this – we don’t have to sit around and take it.  When 25 states refused compliance with the REAL ID Act of 2005, that law remained on the books in Congress, was never challenged in Court, but was rendered virtually null, void and unenforceable in most of the country.

Saying NO works.

Become a member and support the TAC!

When enough people stand up and say NO to Washington DC, and enough states follow their lead and pass laws backing them up, the feds are going to have a hell of a time trying to force their unconstitutional “laws,” regulations….and mandates…down our throats.

NOTE: The preceding was recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 36 on February 22, 2012. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link.

The post The Tenthers are Coming! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

On Feb. 9, Esquire Magazine political blogger Charles P. Pierce reviewed the documentary film Nullification: The Rightful Remedy, a full-length movie produced by the Foundation for a Free Society and the Tenth Amendment Center.

At least that’s what I think he reviewed. He called the film Nullification: The Original Remedy and claimed Citizens United produced the documentary. The fact that we showed the movie in the Citizens United Theater at CPAC apparently confused our fearless reviewer.

In his online bio, Pierce claims he “has been a working journalist since 1976. He is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America.”

Perhaps things have changed since 1976, but when I attended journalism school a few years ago, my professors put a lot of emphasis on getting basic facts correct. You know; things like the title of the movie you’re reviewing. And the producer. Granted, sometimes ascertaining facts can prove difficult. It takes a little effort and research. In journalism 101, I learned the importance of talking to people involved in my story to gather information and confirm my assumptions.

For instance, if I were reviewing a film, I would want to talk to the director or perhaps a cast member from the movie. In fact, Pierce had that opportunity, as Jason Rink, the director and producer, Michael Boldin, the executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, and I were all in the room and accessible during the entire showing of the film.

Crickets.

To his credit, Pierce did issue a correction and an apology. You can read it here.

But Pierce’s intellectual sloppiness rivaled his journalistic sloppiness.

He excels at the straw man argument, and he sets up two in the opening paragraph.

“You really have to give them credit for what they’ve built — a completely self-contained universe with its own laws and its own history, eminently comfortable and eminenly (sic) seductive. Nowhere is this more obvious in their tacit devotion to the government of the Articles of Confederation. You see, all of them here are devoted Tenthers, which is better than calling yourself a ‘states-rights person,’ because that still has some unpleasant resonance with events in Mississippi in 1962, although it’s coming back into vogue.”

First, he sets up the Articles of Confederation straw man, and then hands the scarecrow a race card. He revisits these ideas throughout his piece. At one point, Pierce quotes Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on separation of powers and then quips, “And thus do New York and New Jersey once again stare daggers at each other across the Hudson because of import duties.”

The comparison is absurd. The framers included interstate commerce regulation among Congress’ powers specifically to prevent import duties. No Tenther would ever deny the federal government’s role in that area. Pierce cleverly torches the straw man – a government under the Articles of Confederation, but fails to address the actual assertion – that we believe the framers meant what they said when they claimed they were creating a federal government of specific, limited powers. We don’t devote ourselves to the government created under the Articles of Confederation, but the federal government promised by Madison in Federalist 45.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which the last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Speaking of Madison, we find Pierce’s most legitimate intellectual achievement in his pointing out that the fourth president tried to scurry away from his support of nullification later in life. Basically, he was for it before he was against it. But does his later vacillation invalidate the soundness of his earlier reasoning? Were there political considerations that led to his public backtracking late in life? And did he completely repudiate the principles underlying nullification? (Hint, he did not.) Pierce fails to address these questions. As for Jefferson’s unwavering support of nullification, our fearless journalist brushes off the author of the Declaration of Independence as “a bit of a wackadoo.”

Pierce wraps his second straw man up in a KKK robe, implying that nullification must be racist because John C. Calhoun defended it during the tariff crisis between 1828 and 1832. But Calhoun did not advance the doctrine on behalf of slavery. In fact, his slave holding, while morally repugnant, has nothing to do with nullification whatsoever. Pierce uses an ad hominem attack on Calhoun to prop up his straw man. As Pierce himself alludes to in his review of the movie, northern states nullified fugitive slave laws, which seems a powerful endorsement of the doctrine. Ironically, abolitionists actually USED Calhoun’s nullification arguments to justify their actions on behalf of fugitive slaves and cited him by name. And while we’re on the subject, staunch opponent of nullification, Pres. Andrew Jackson, was also a slave-owner. So it logically follows that his arguments against the doctrine of nullification aren’t valid, right?

Or perhaps I should give Pierce the benefit of the doubt and assume his desperate need for me to address Calhoun comes from his sense that the nullification crisis of 1832 represents the pinnacle of failure for the doctrine. But does it? Ultimately, the South got some tariff relief when all was said and done. One could argue that the outcome speaks to the effectiveness of state interposition.

Truthfully, I am probably being too generous, because Pierce repeatedly returns to the racism meme.

“But what is truly missing from the film, in which nullifiers are anti-slavery heroes,is (sic) the use to which nullification was put in the civil rights struggle of the 1950’s and 1960’s. Martin Luther King specifically cited it in his speech on the Mall in 1963.”

Yes, bigots used the notion of “states’ rights” to advance the cause of segregation. There – I said it. But can we take a moment and step away from the emotional appeal of Pierce’s argument and think a little deeper? Does the fact that some people applied the idea in a nefarious way invalidate the entire principle? Does the fact that murderers sometimes use hammers to kill people negate the tool’s value in pounding nails?

Here we have one instance of a gross use of nullification. Opponents relentlessly pound the race straw man until the stuffing pops out. Yet lovers of big powerful central government fail to ever mention that nullification was used in defense of free speech, to protect immigrants, to advance economic freedom, to fight involuntary military conscription and to battle slavery itself.

Become a member and support the TAC!

At its core, nullification is about decentralizing power. And while proponents of big-government can point to the civil rights era as a great victory, on balance centralized power has decimated minorities. Doubt me? Ask the Ukrainians under Stalin, the Jews under the Nazi regime, Armenians under Ottoman rule and Cambodians under Pol Pot.

Or Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt.

No, Mr. Pierce; nullification is not about slavery. We are not racists. We simply believe that the federal government should remain, as Jefferson put it, bound by the chains of the Constitution. Pierce can paint us as extremists all he wants, but it seems to me the true extremists are those who insist the federal government should remain free to do whatever it damn well pleases.

NOTE: The preceding was recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 35 on February 15, 2012. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link.

The post Esquire: Lies and Race-Baiting to Promote Central Power appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

The passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, with its provisions for detention of American citizens and resident aliens, certainly woke up many Americans to some very serious problems we’re facing right now.

Over the last week, we’ve seen people never before interested in the work of the Tenth Amendment Center logging on to our website, quoting us in news stories, and emailing to ask how they can help. These folks span the political spectrum from left to right; Republican, Democrat and independent, and even the generally apathetic.

The idea that your government can kidnap you seems to have lit off a firestorm.

Some scoff at the use of the word “kidnapping,” calling it hyperbole designed to stir up emotions. But what else can you call it?

kidnap: verb (used with object), -napped or -naped, -nap·ping or -nap·ing.

When you remove due process from the equation, arrest becomes nothing more than sanctioned kidnapping. Americans know this. We may suffer from frequent bouts of apathy, but we aren’t stupid.

Just yesterday, I received and email from a dear woman in Washington state.

Mr Maharrey;  My husband served his country for over seventeen years, While in the Submarine Service. We as a family paid the price for our rights. How many Veterans now wish they had not wasted the time away from of their families. Yet sacrificed for our freedom.  Only because Congress and Senate have written laws like these and many others. This one tops them all.

Americans understand the draconian nature of these detention provisions. Now, many previously disengaged stand ready to fight.

I say, welcome to the party!

But make no mistake; this can’t end simply by rolling back the detention provisions of the NDAA alone, as important as that is. It took 100 years or more of  federal government power grabs  to bring us to this place.

In August 1974, Pres. Gerald R. Ford told a joint session of Congress, ” A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Many Americans cheerlead as the federal government take on roles never authorized by the Constitution. During the 1930s, large numbers of Americans praised FDR for his “New Deal.” They lauded Pres. Johnson for his “Great Society.” On the other side of the political spectrum, conservatives praised Pres. George W. Bush for the Patriot Act and clamored for a bigger badder “War on Drugs.” Federal environmental regulations, food regulations, health care acts, TSA gropes – the list goes on and on. Americans sat by quietly as the feds exercised more and more powers not delegated.

Why?

Because we thought those were “good” things. The government was trying to solve problems we knew needed solving. As long as we viewed those ends as justified, we ignored the unconstitutional nature of the means.

Surprisingly, it looks like Gerald Ford was right.

Because today, we see in the detention provisions of NDAA the legacy of 100-plus years of federal growth

This is not the federal government our founders envisioned. They created a general government with limited powers, leaving the rest to the states and the people. Read closely the words of James Madison in Federalist 45.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which the last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

The framers limited the scope of the federal government for a reason. They knew something like NDAA would eventually come down the pike.

At the Tenth Amendment Center, we don’t trust government power at ANY level. We know power corrupts. We know state and local governments do their fair share of nasty things. But we also recognize decentralization checks power. If government power is bad, centralized government power is much worse.

Think of it this way: a cup of bleach is quite caustic. It can quickly burn skin and ruin clothes. Now dump that cup of bleach into two gallons of water. It can still whiten your clothes, and the bleach still retains a bit of a kick, but it can cause much less damage when diluted.

Make no mistake; the Tenth Amendment Center aims to render the detention provisions in the NDAA null and void. But we won’t stop there. Our ultimate mission is to return to a proper balance of power between the states and federal governments, as intended by the founders and expressly stated in the Tenth Amendment. Our agenda is really quite simple: follow the Constitution every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.

Become a member and support the TAC!

If we successfully fight NDAA detention and stop there, we’ve done nothing but mow the grass. We must pull it up by its roots. We must dismantle the unconstitutional system that exists in the U.S. and return to the system intended by those who created it.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “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.”

So for those of you new to all this, thanks for stopping by! Welcome to the party. We hope you’ll stick around for the grand finale.

NOTE: The preceding was recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 34 on February 8, 2012. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link.

The post Welcome to the Party! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Here’s a surprise for you – a significant inspiration for the activist methods here at the Tenth Amendment Center came from the American Civil Liberties Union.  Yes, you heard that right – the ACLU.

Back in 2005, the Bush Administration got the REAL ID Act slammed through Congress – and a lot of people from all across the political spectrum were pretty upset about it.  The ACLU was clearly part of that.  In fact, in September of 2005, they registered a domain name which is still active today – realnightmare.org.

By January of 2006 (or possibly even before), they were already leading the charge nationally to oppose the previously passed federal act.  Their new website was live and offering a LOT of good information about the problems with REAL ID.  One of the most interesting sections of that website was part of their main header navigation – a button called “in the states”   Here’s the text from that page as it stood on January 18, 2006:

The Real ID Act does not directly change driver’s licenses – instead it threatens the states by stating that the federal government will not accept their citizens’ IDs unless the states change their laws.  As a result, the Act cannot enter into effect unless the states change their laws and appropriate funds. This page will monitor and track such legislation, and other developments within the states.

Interesting.  Unless I’m mistaken, it sounds to me like the ACLU was recommending that states refuse to comply with the REAL ID Act of 2005.  And, in fact, many states followed that advice over the next few years to some great effect – and the ACLU tracked those actions on that very page.

For those of you who follow our work here at the Tenth Amendment Center this probably sounds quite familiar.  On our legislative tracking page and through our state model legislation – this is pretty much what we do today.  We encourage people to get active locally.  We encourage states to refuse compliance with unconstitutional federal acts.  And we provide model legislation on various issues to help in this process.  Our goals?  To render as many unconstitutional federal acts null and void – or simply unenforceable – in the states.

And whether the issue is mandates, or regulations, or monetary policy, or the TSA – this method has been gaining more and more traction, and even major media attention, over the last few years.

Fast forward to today – in sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, the US Federal Government has committed one of the worst attacks on your liberty in the history of this country.  I never thought I’d see the day when George Bush, John Ashcroft and the PATRIOT Act seemed “moderate.”  They weren’t, of course – but in comparison to what Barack Obama signed on December 31, 2011, they’re not even close.

Within days of that so-called law being signed by Obama, a number of good people, including Blake at the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition – started working on draft legislation to reject this unconstitutional monstrosity at the state level.

And today, within just a few weeks, already two counties have passed resolutions denouncing the act.  Three states are considering binding laws to help nullify the act – and we have firm commitments from many others around the country to consider the same in the very near future.

So what happened when Rhode Island State Representative Dan Gordon reached out to his state’s ACLU chapter on this?  He tweeted about it on January 30:

The RI ACLU chapter said they are opposed to #NDAA but won’t support my resolution due to it’s 10th Amendment assertion #ThePeoplesCaucus

— Rep. Dan Gordon (@RepDanGordon) January 31, 2012

Maybe in Rhode Island, the ACLU has got a rogue chapter – or maybe not.  But either way, here’s an important message for the ACLU –

The 10th Amendment IS part of the Bill of Rights!

Look, I get it.  Every one’s got an agenda.  We do too.  The Constitution – every issue, every time. No exceptions and no excuses.  That’s our agenda.

But, that obviously doesn’t fit with what most other political organizations are trying to accomplish.  We know that.  That’s why we’re often a bit of an island here at the Tenth Amendment Center – debating with everyone.    John Adams probably said it best when he wrote:

…”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.”

So that’s us – principled to a fault, I guess.  But, we are most certainly willing to work with just about anyone and just about any group on single issues.  We don’t have to be in total agreement on everything to push back against the feds on one particular thing – that would be a recipe for disaster.  A recipe that some – just might want it seems?

Bottom line – we want to work with as many different people as possible on various issues.  The more we can find common ground with others, the greater chance we have in winning – for liberty.

On just about every issue, there’s Downsize DC.  On privacy, indefinite detentions, and more, there’s the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.  On mandates and spending, there’s the Tea Party, the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute and others.  On 8th Amendment violations and habeas corpus issues, there’s World Can’t Wait.  On rejecting corporate bailouts, there’s the Occupy movement.  On local efforts, there’s Oath Keepers and the Free State Project.  On unconstitutional wars, there’s Antiwar.com.  On the federal reserve, there’s Campaign for Liberty and the Sound Money Center.  On the TSA there’s We Won’t Fly.  And on the NDAA – there’s well – it should be just about everyone.

And that includes you too, American Civil Liberties Union.  You’re entrenched, you’re well-funded, and if George Bush was in office, I’m convinced that you’d be setting up a new website, NDAANightmare.org – and working with people on a local or state level to reject these new federal kidnapping powers.

So – you hate the 10th Amendment.  Fine.  Maybe you don’t want the federal government limited to powers delegated to it in the Constitution. Maybe you incorrectly think the 10th Amendment is only available to certain political persuasions.  I don’t actually care why.   All I care about is this – people who oppose the new NDAA Kidnapping law doing something effective to put it to an end.

In fact, there’s already model legislation to reject the NDAA, and we’re going to see it introduced all around the country.  Some versions are much like what you at the ACLU helped push in response to the REAL ID Act – noncompliance – and those say nothing about the 10th Amendment.

We’ll continue to push versions of that legislation that include the 10th – because the NDAA purports to give the Feds powers that were never delegated to them in the Constitution.  And, you can be safe in activating your supporters to get involved in the non-10th Amendment versions.  We will support those too.  All these efforts will help get people involved in stopping the NDAA, just like you did for years against Real ID.

Become a member and support the TAC!

So let’s work together on this issue – or pretend we’re not.  It doesn’t really matter.  But, if you claim to oppose the NDAA, you’ve got two options.  Stand up and say no.  Or admit you’re lying.

Nothing else will change a thing.

NOTE: The preceding was recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 33. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link.

The post Message to the ACLU: The 10th Amendment is Part of the Bill of Rights! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

There’s another GOP Debate this week, number twenty or so, I’ve lost count. If it’s anything like the previous debates, Gingrich will attack Romney, and Santorum will attack Paul, and Paul will attack Gingrich. And all of them will attack President Barack Obama. Then the media will rehash it all, putting their respective spin on it.

But I want you to imagine for a moment these headlines the following morning:

-Gingrich Arrested for “Food Stamp President” Remarks!

TAKING IT FOR GRANTED

We take it for granted that during the Presidential Primaries, whoever is in office will be the target of serious criticism by the opposition. There will be negative ads exposing the flawed policies or moral failures of the Commander in Chief. There will be spirited debates between the Republicans and the Democrats over their differences, however slight, on foreign policy, the economy, and the role of government.

We take it for granted that the mainstream media will be free to report on the activities and actions of US Senators, Congressmen, and the President. We take it for granted that, as is often the case, when the mainstream media fails to report on the real issues of the day, we can rely on the alternative media to expose the blatant hypocrisy, fraud, and waste that is regularly perpetrated by those who hold elected office.

WHAT IF?

But what if criticizing the President were Illegal? What if speaking, printing, or publishing a negative opinion about your Congressman was a federal offense? What if, in the United States, it wasn’t just illegal for the average citizen to do this, but also every radio host, every newspaper columnist, every television news anchor, and every candidate for public office. What if it were a federal crime to criticize the government?

What would we do about it?

This isn’t a fictional tale of what could happen in some dystopian future America from the mind of Phillip K. Dick or George Orwell.

It already happened. It happened 214 years ago, during the administration of President John Adams. The year was 1798, when Congress passed and President Adams signed The Sedition Act into law. Just 7 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, that document which included as it’s First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when the Adams Administration passed this hateful piece of legislation which made it a crime to publicly or privately say anything that might bring the federal government into ill repute.

We can imagine the debates that might have occurred on the House floor. A handful of legislators in the Jeffersonian tradition warning how this law could be used to silence dissent, shred the Constitution, and eventually prevent free and fair elections from ever taking place again. How can you possibly have fair elections if you can’t criticize the incumbents?

We can imagine President Adams, upon signing it into law, perhaps saying that while he was uncomfortable with portions of the Act, and it was by no means a perfect piece of legislation, it was necessary for the safety and security of our young nation. He may have even assured the citizens that it would never be used against them, not in any way that abridged their Constitutional right to free speech.

BIG POWER = BAD NEWS

But Thomas Jefferson and James Madison knew what would happen. Jefferson wasn’t surprised when Congressman Matthew Lyon from Vermont was imprisoned for criticizing President Adams’ foreign policy. Madison wasn’t surprised when newspaper editors were jailed and printing presses seized.

Jefferson and Madison both knew that whenever the Federal Government–whenever Congress, and the President, and even the Supreme Court–when they conspired together to expand government power at the expense of the liberty of the people, something would have to be done.

They knew that something would have to be done, and that it was up to the States to do it. That’s why, in 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Jefferson said that “whenever the General government assumes undelgated powers, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” Madison said that when the federal government steps beyond its constitutional authority, the States are “duty bound” to resist.

The Sedition Act eventually expired on March 3, 1801. But it’s legacy lives on.

FAST FORWARD TO TODAY

In 2001 President George W. Bush signed into law what Judge Andrew Napolitano calls “the most hateful piece of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts”–The USA PATRIOT Act, which granted federal agents the power to write their own search warrants.

We have the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA, which is a direct attack on our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Now, we have NDAA, a bill that gives legal authority to the President to kidnap and perpetually imprison American citizens without due process of law.

But don’t worry. President Obama signed it with “reservations.” You see, it’s not a perfect piece of legislation, but it’s necessary for the safety and security of our nation. And you can be assured that it won’t be used against American citizens. It will only be used against the bad guys.

WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?

Here’s what we’re doing about it.

On February 9th-11th, the Foundation for a Free Society and the Tenth Amendment Center are taking the message of Nullification to CPAC in Washington D.C.

On Thursday, Feburary 9th at 5:30 pm we will be screening the World Premiere of our feature-length documentary Nullification: The Rightful Remedy.

On Friday February 10th, we’ll be holding two special sessions at CPAC – the first at 4:30 – is a more in depth set of speeches and educational information about the 10th Amendment and nullification. The second, at 5:30 – is a dedicated Q/A session for the film – you’ll be able to watch the movie Thursday night, think up some questions and interact directly with a number of people involved in the documentary directly the very next day..

In this film, Kevin Gutzman discusses the Constitutional basis for Nullification, Tom Woods explains the significance of the Resolutions of 1798, Mike Maharrey demolishes the myth that the Tenthers just want to bring back slavery, and Michael Boldin gives examples of how nullification is being used all over the country, right now, to stop the encroachment of federal power. This film also features Stewart Rhodes, Sheriff Richard Mack, Charles Goyette, Debra Medina, Jim Babka, any many others.

This film has the power to educate thousands of citizens and legislators about the 10th Amendment and Nullification, and take this movement to the next level. I want to thank everyone who contributed financially to make this film possible. Advance copies of the DVD will begin to ship in less than 4 weeks.

Become a member and support the TAC!

If possible, we need you to come and support us at CPAC on February 9th, and join us for the World Premiere. We need you to order a copy of the DVD for yourself, and consider ordering one for your State Representative or Senator. Most of all, we need you to spread the word online. Go to NullificationMovie.com to pre-order your copy of the DVD today.

Together, we can spread the word that the states CAN and MUST stop DC.

NOTE: The preceding was recorded live by Jason Rink at the end of Tenther Radio Episode #32. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link.

The post The Power to Educate and Activate appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.