Tenth Amendment Center: Constitutional Conversation

by Bryce Shonka

Many of us, after years of indoctrination at our government schools, were left with a sense that there is a great government force working hard every day to protect us and look after our best interest. We were told that government standards keep us safe from disease, that government highway regulations keep us safe from car accidents, that federal agencies make sure that the food we eat will be healthy.

The result of all of this? Americans everywhere drive more carelessly, do not research what they put on their plate and take medications that leave them sicker, rather than healthier.

For government officials, free from the scrutiny of the free market and any sort of competition, they typically have one primary goal once they have obtained their coveted position of power- to retain that power and gain even more. This is a simple fact of human nature, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

A great example is the Food and Drug Administration, which after obtaining the confidence of the republicâ€s masses has been responsible for regular introduction of medications that maim and even kill those who trust itâ€s oversight. This is hardly surprising when one considers that many FDA regulators were installed after terms as drug company lobbyists. Likewise, Federal officials entrusted with Americaâ€s food supply have allowed the greatest food experiment in the history of mankind- the use of Genetically Modified crops.

The dangers of this veil of protection not only enables Americans to become ignorant, mindless sheep but also allows the growth of power, as recently seen with the Federal forays into finance and medical care.

Those who seek the protective hand of big brother pay a high price as they trust their quality of life to a largely self serving group of legislators. If the goal is a better quality of life, the solution is simple: more responsibility and less government involvement.

Bryce Shonka [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the California Tenth Amendment Center. He also serves as the Media and Grassroots Director for the National Tenth Amendment Center. He resides in Los Angeles, CA.

The post The Great Lie of the Nanny State: Government Works appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Sheriff Richard Mack, the former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, talks about how the sheriffs in this country are indeed the ultimate law authority in their respective jurisdictions, how the sheriff has the power and responsiblity to defend his citizens against all enemies – foreign and domestic, how presidents use the IRS as a political hit squad on their opponents, his landmark court case – and supreme court victory – in response to the Clinton administration and the Brady Bill back in the 1990’s, the federal government’s authority being only that which has been delegated to it in the Constitution, how to approach your county sheriff to encourage them to stand up for the Constitution, and more.

Mentioned in this Show

www.sheriffmack.com

The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope

Printz v United States

Sheriff Mack Video on the Supremacy Clause

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The post Sheriff Mack: The County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Walter Kirk Wood, professor of history at Alabama State University and expert on the principle of nullification, explains the history of nullification in the American Constitutional tradition, a federal system as a check on arbitrary, centralized power, Imperium in Imperio and the American colonies, the three prominent nullification movements in early American history, James Madison’s “report of 1800,” Madison as the father of nullification and his notes on the Constitutional Convention, the extended-republic of the anti-federalists, how nullification acts as a check on central power and is inherent in a federal system, how nullification was virtually lost for over a century, its return in recent history, America’s first freedom as freedom from government, and more.

Mentioned in this Show

Nullification: A Constitutional History (vol 1)

Nullification: A Constitutional History (vol 2)

Madison’s Notes On the Constitutional Convention of 1787

Republic of Letters: Jefferson and Madison

Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Virginia Resolution of 1798

NullificationHistory.com

Current Nullification Efforts

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The post Kirk Wood: Nullification, A Constitutional History appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Kevin Gutzman, best-selling author and expert on American Constitutional history, discusses the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine, how the doctrine has given us government by judiciary instead of government by representation, the Due Process clause, Substantive Protections vs. Due Procedure, the original intent of the 14th Amendment, how the courts changed that meaning over the ensuing five decades, the Bill of Rights as a limitation on the power of Congress, how the incorporation doctrine has turned the principles of federalism on its head, representative government vs. government by “experts” Privileges or Immunities and The Slaughter-House Cases, rights of State citizenship, how James Madison warned that those in government would tend to use and expand power, some of the greatest violations of the Constitution under the doctrine of incorporation, why federalism and decentralization is a better system to secure liberty, and more.

Mentioned in this Show

KevinGutzman.com

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution

Who Killed the Constitution

Virginia’s American Revolution

Slaughter-House Cases

Lawrence v Texas

The post Kevin Gutzman: Freedom vs the Courts appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Rob Natelson, recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, offers a lesson on the general Welfare clause of the United States Constitution. He discusses the original meaning of the words themselves, the meaning of general welfare in the preamble, the original meaning and understanding of the clause, the taxing clause, the Hamiltonian vs the Madisonian view, anti-federalist concerns, modern interpretations, court cases which have turned its meaning upside down, practical reasons for a limiting view of the clause and the Constitution as a whole, and more.

Mentioned in this Show

Federalist #41

United States v Butler

Korematsu v. United States

More from Rob Natelson:

Are Campaign Finance Laws Constitutional?

Is ObamaCare Constitutional?

Claiming Almost Everything is “Commerce”

The post Podcast: A Lesson on the General Welfare Clause appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan have already introduced similar legislation, and potentially, 15 other states will do so in the 2010 legislative session.

But hereâ€s something fundamentally important that NYT writer Monica Davey claims in her article:

…the Constitutionâ€s supremacy clause ordinarily allows federal law to, in essence, trump a state law that conflicts with it…

A best, this is a highly-misleading statement.

There are two main points to make here:

1. The “supremacy clause” does not allow federal law to trump state law in all situations, or even “ordinarily” as Davey claims. It only does so when both laws are in pursuance of a power that has been delegated to the federal government by “We the People.” – in the Constitution.

2. We know that this is the case because Monicaâ€s version of the supremacy clause was actually proposed by leading founders – and rejected. When the Constitution was being drafted, James Madison and others proposed what came to be known as the “Virginia Plan.” A major part of this plan was to give the congress a veto over state laws. It was defeated. That means, in plain English, the founders considered this idea, and said no. And Davey is irrefutably wrong in her claim.

So we know from this short lesson that the supremacy clause did not authorize the power that Davey is claiming. In reality, things are pretty much the other way around. The biggest Constitutional problems that actually exist in this country are those times when the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it by “We the People.” And that happens far more often than not.

Unfortunately, though, not enough people know this important history of the Virginia Plan, and this basic premise of the Constitution, so theyâ€re easily swayed by patently false statements by people like Davey and the New York Times.

The post Getting the Supremacy Clause Wrong appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Rob Natelson

Effectively defending American federalism requires us to remember that federalism was not created by the states – nor was it created for state benefit.

Federalism was fashioned by the American people – for the benefit of individuals and of the people as a whole. Justice Sandra Day Oâ€Connor, possibly the most eminent defender of the Tenth Amendment to sit on the modern Supreme Court, put it this way:

The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The post Getting the 10th Amendment Right appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Josh Eboch

Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, no single ideological camp could wield sufficient power to impose a set of beliefs on the entire country.

Which was exactly the point of our federalist system, and of the 10th Amendment. Beyond specific, enumerated federal powers, an infinite number of issues were intentionally left to the authority of the people through their state governments. And it is to the states that liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians must address all questions extending beyond the constitutional purview of federal authority.

Click Here to Read the Full Article

The post Federalism, Freedom and the Constitution appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Rob Natelson – original article posted 09-17-09

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has issued a press release in which she purports to rebut those of us who have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of some health care reform plans.

Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) claims:

“The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states… or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. (bolded in original).

For several reasons, this is a highly misleading statement.

First, it fails to mention a concern expressed by many constitutional scholars, including those on the Left: Substantive due process.

“Substantive due process” is the doctrine by which the Supreme Court strikes down laws it deems unacceptably interfere with personal privacy or autonomy. Health care laws that, for example, limit oneâ€s ability to fund and control oneâ€s own health care could well run afoul of substantive due process rules.

Second, the statement fails to mention that, while the Supreme Court has upheld many delegations of power from Congress to executive branch agencies, the Court has affirmed repeatedly that there are limits. Some health care proposals involve wider delegations of authority than any since the New Dealâ€s National Reconstruction Adminisration (NRA) — which was invalidated by a unanimous Court.

Third, the Pelosi release disregards the fact that on several occasions the modern Supreme Court has struck down overreaching federal legislation, supposedly adopted under the Commerce Power. Also, on several occasions, the Court has interpreted congressional acts narrowly to avoid constitutional conflicts.

Fourth: Pelosi (or her speechwriter) clearly misstate the current Supreme Courtâ€s test for laws under the Constitutionâ€s Commerce Power. The statement that Congress can regulate “activities that have an effect on interstate commerce” should be that Congress can regulate “economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Non-economic activities, such as some health care decisions, would have to meet a much stricter test. This may seem to be a minor mistake, but for legal purposes it is an important one, and one that, for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, is not easily excusable.

Finally, Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) commits the mistake of failing to look at wider judicial trends. One of these trends is the long-term movement by the Supreme Court toward interpreting the Constitution according to its real meaning – the original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers.

And virtually no knowledgeable person thinks government health care is constitutional under that standard.

Rob Natelson is Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.

The post Nancy Pelosi: Wrong on Health Care appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Michael Boldin

This year, seven states have passed sovereignty resolutions under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Two states passed laws nullifying some federal firearms regulations. Thirteen states now have Medical Marijuana laws in direct opposition to federal laws. And three states are considering constitutional amendments allowing residents to effectively opt-out of any future national health care plan.

What does this have to do with September 17th, Constitution Day?

everything.

The Constitution of the United States was a revolutionary document. “Before it, no government in history had seen its duties and restrictions so clearly and carefully defined”

When it was being considered for ratification, there was strong opposition from famous American figures that included George Mason and Patrick Henry. “One major reason for this was a fear of too much power

The founding generation spent their lives toiling under a tyranny – a government without limits. When the Constitution was written, it was done to limit the power of government. It was created under the principle of popular sovereignty – that ‘We the People of the Several States’ created the government, and all powers not delegated to it, were retained.”

Depending on how you count them, the People delegated approximately 35 powers to the federal government and not included in those powers are national health care, the creation of free speech zones, federal gun regulations, the war on drugs, and more.

The Constitution is not exclusively for either the left or the right. It established rules for limiting the power of government so your liberty would have a better chance of success. The founders created a system of government where the most important and most difficult issues would be kept close to home, and that’s just the opposite of how things are today.

Over the years, wise men and women warned us that the Constitution would never enforce itself. Its high time that people start recognizing this as fact. No amount of calling or voting or litigating or hoping will get federal politicians to restrict their own power.

That’s why we at TenthAmendmentCenter.com created the 10-4 Pledge so people can find candidates for office who believe in the strict limitations on power that the Constitution stands for.

The 10-4 Pledge is a set of 10 affirmations and 10 promises for legislators and candidates. Included in the pledge is an affirmation that “All just political authority is derived from the People,” and a promise that elected officials will always vote “in favor of the Constitution of the United States. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.”

Already, several prominent candidates have affirmed these positions as early-signers of the pledge, including Randy Brogdon for Governor of Oklahoma, Adam Kokesh for US House in New Mexico, and Brandon Creighton from the Texas House of Representatives and author of HCR-50 – the Texas Sovereignty Resolution.

So whether youre on the left, or on the right, or even somewhere in the middle, the path to freedom, the path to your political goals lies not in Washington D.C. Instead, it lies in Madison, and Jefferson (City), and other state capitols around the country.

So this Constitution Day take a new pledge. Ignore and resist the federal overnment. Its as worthless as it is dangerous.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The post The 10-4 Pledge for the Constitution appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.