For the Sake of the 10th Amendment, and the American Republic

The DC Clothesline, January 12, 2014 by Norton Nowlin

When will the 50 sovereign American States begin to collectively assert their authority under the 10th Amendment to curtail the unlawful power claimed by the federal government to legislate extra-constitutional regulatory laws to control the lives of the American people? The 10th Amendment simply declares the following vital entitlement of the States or the People:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1941, was direly flippant enough to declare the 10th Amendment a truism, which means trite but true, in that laws legislated by Congress which are predicated upon powers not granted to the federal government “might” be allowed. This, to me, is like declaring the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion a truism, and saying that a law “might” be passed by Congress, and signed by the Executive branch, which would directly infringe upon the Peoples’ freedom of religion. The 10th Amendment is still a part of the Bill of Rights, is it not?

READ IT HERE!  

Nullification vs. Article V Constitutional Convention: Where is the Honest and Open Debate?

by Diane Rufino, January 5, 2014

When the original 13 states came together to discuss the possibility of establishing a confederacy, at the urging of Benjamin Franklin (“Join or Die”), they did so with a great deal of hope, but also a great deal of trepidation. The hope was that a federal government might be formed that could provide greater security and stability to the colonies.  The hope was that it might handle the few issues that were common to all the states but which could not be dealt with by the states individually. The fears, on the other hand, were that this government might come to gain an enormous amount of power; that this power might come to be concentrated in the hands of very few; and that the federal government as a whole might end up overreaching its authority and end up meddling in affairs that ought rightly to be left to the states and the various local governments (if not individuals themselves).

The Constitution created a limited government, which is evidenced in four obvious ways: (1) The Constitution was framed in such a way that the power of the federal government would be split between three separate branches – each acting as a check-and-balance on the power of the others; (2) The power of the federal government as a whole was limited to certain specific areas; (3) Government power structure was split between two co-equal sovereigns – the individual states and the federal government (emphasized or restated by the Tenth Amendment); and (4) A Bill of Rights (“further declaratory statements and restrictive clauses to prevent the government from misconstruing or abusing its powers..”) to put further limitations on government power.

For 200 years, this structure has been eroded, always at the hand of the federal government. After numerous overt acts of usurpation, constitutional amendments, and loose interpretations of the Constitution itself, each of the branches of government has managed to seize more power than it was ever meant to have. Now, as we see and feel most acutely, the federal government involves itself in matters that are neither federal in nature nor are subject to its jurisdiction.  It insinuates itself into virtually every aspect of public and private life, including political, economic, and social.  When we listen to a young mother in Alabama cry because the new healthcare mandate has increased her insurance premiums each month by over $100 and has presented her with a dilemma that is causing her great heartache and distress (she wants to work and do the right thing, but if she does, she can’t afford the increase in healthcare premiums, and so she is faced with the choice that puts and her family on welfare), then we understand how destructive the government has become and how far it has strayed from its intended purpose.

READ IT ALL HERE!

Rule of Thumb: How Foreign Governments and Congress Have Scrapped the 10th Amendment

November 15, 2013

We live in a nation that is run by federal bureaucrats. There is almost nothing we can do to stop them from interfering in our lives, other than through the courts. It is extremely expensive to do this.

Let me give you a recent example. The United States Supreme Court is hearing a case in which, if upheld by the Court, the Congress of the United States will be authorized to pass legislation that is inconsistent with the United States Constitution, as long as the legislation is an extension of the treaty power.

If the court upholds the case, Congress will be able to override limitations of the federal government that have been imposed by the 10th amendment. This is a 10th amendment case. Wikipedia describes it. The case is almost beyond belief. It has to do with a burned thumb. The case is Bond v. U.S..

The husband of Carol A. Bond of Lansdale, Pennsylvania impregnated Myrlinda Haynes. Mrs. Bond told Haynes, “I am going to make your life a living hell.” Federal postal inspectors videotaped Mrs. Bond stealing mail and putting poison in the muffler of Haynes’s car.Bond was indicted for stealing mail and for violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. Her appeal argued that applying the chemical weapons treaty to her violated the Tenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals found Bond lacked standing to make a Tenth Amendment claim.

Can you imagine this? Here is a woman who is about to be put into prison for violating a treaty, which the U.S. government says overrides the 10th amendment, yet she had no legal standing in the case. This is Alice through the looking glass.

READ MORE:  http://www.garynorth.com/public/11775.cfm

Firefighters, Teachers and Police - Not a Federal Responsibility

By Brian Darling, 6/18/2012

The left wants us to believe that paying for teachers, firefighters and police is a federal responsibility. Not so. Such services have traditionally been the responsibility of state and local governments.

In Federalist 45, James Madison wrote that the powers of the federal government are “few and defined.” Madison argued that state power extends to issues that “concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the explicit power to supplant the traditional police powers of the states.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates powers granted to the federal government. Nowhere does it list the power to “bail out the states who come up short in paying for firefighters, police and teachers.” Furthermore, when the feds “give” lesser governments money to pay for local responsibilities, they often attach conditions to funding that may be unconstitutional.

The 10th Amendment states “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The educating of children, the protection of the populace from crime and the suppression of fires are clearly powers reserved to the states.

Last week, the Left hit Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney with the supposedly shaming accusation that he wants to cut funding for these state and local functions. They went into a tizzy when Romney remarked that “teachers and firemen and policemen are hired at the local level and also by states. The federal government doesn’t pay for teachers, firefighters or policemen.”

PLEASE CONTINUE READING: 

http://townhall.com/columnists/briandarling/2012/06/18/firefighters_teachers_and_police__not_a_federal_responsibility

CCTA EVENTS THIS WEEK YOU WON'T WANT TO MISS

Two events this week at… 

Bridgepointe Hotel Across the bridge from New Bern, NC, near Outback

In the room overlooking the Trent River

On Tuesday, June 19 at 7 pm…
The Tenth Amendment & “Nullification” From concept to useful laws, Speaker: Phil Routszong
Virginia’s new “NDAA Nullification Act” is an example


On Wednesday, June 20 from 6 to 9 pm…
U.S. Constitution Seminar, America’s Original Success Formula, Speaker: Earl Taylor, PhD, President, National Center for Constitutional Studies

Both free & open to all citizens--(Optional $5 study guide available at Constitution Seminar)

CCTA UPCOMING EVENTS! MARK YOUR CALENDAR!

Next CCTA Meeting, June 19, 2012 at 7:00-9:00 pm,

Bridge Point Hotel, New Bern, NC.

Program: 10th Amendment and Nullification, presented

by Phil Routszong.

(Note: We meet the 3rd Tuesday of the month.)

Join us again on June 20th for Constitutional Seminar

with speaker Dr. Earl Taylor, National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS),

Bridge Pointe Hotel, 101 Howell Rd., New Bern, NC 28562.

Dr. Taylor will present a primer on the U.S. Constitution; cost $5.00 for study guide. Contact Lynn Childs for info, phone: 252-402-0333 (or email: lynn.ccta@gmail.com).

CHUCK NORRIS: 10 Questions To Find Our Next President (Part 1)

1/3/2012

Whom should we nominate to represent the GOP in a fight against President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election?

I believe the name of the candidate that fills the majority of the answers in the following 10 questions (in no particular order of importance) deserves your vote.

Based upon the GOP candidates' character and track records:

10) Who is most committed to follow and lead by the U.S. Constitution?

It's one thing to take the presidential oath of office, but who has the strongest track record of citing and standing by the Constitution?

James Madison, America's fourth president and regarded as the "Father of the Constitution," explained: "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

Strictly following the Constitution includes restoring the 10th Amendment balance of power to our states and shifting solutions away from an "only government" savior (to which Obama committed early in his presidency) to encouraging local communities, agencies and neighborhoods across our nation to rally together, strategize and resurrect the golden rule in caring for their own, just as it was done in America's heyday.

9) Who has the greatest ability to rally, unify and mobilize citizens across political and societal spectrums?

Everything rises or falls on leadership, and it's the quintessential necessity in our next president because of the increasing political and social divisions (including class warfare) across our land and around our world.

I believe our country was duped to interpret our current president's charisma as leadership ability. Pitting political parties and polarizing social classes against one another isn't leadership. America's woes have been exacerbated by Obama's inexperience and lack of executive leadership, and our world also is suffering from it.

More than ever, we need a new president who has a proven track record to rally a team of Washington rivals, as well as a diversified American public and world. As I've written extensively in a previous article, I firmly believe that the candidate who extends a public invitation to all his GOP rivals to be a part of the same administration (to fight together) could start a chain reaction leading to his nomination and election.

8) Who has the best working comprehension of America?

John Adams, America's second president, said, "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy."

I believe a mastery of American history and politics is a must for any president, for it is a record of how others have led the country since its founding. The degree to which one comprehends America's ebbs and flows parallels one's proficiency to lead. As the adage goes, if one doesn't know history, he is doomed to repeat its mistakes.

Knowledge of other nations is essential, too, as it will determine how the next president moves America's chess pieces on a global scale.

7) Who has the best ability to influence a volatile world away from the brink of destruction?

These are dangerous times. Mexican cartels are clashing at our borders. Global terrorists have taken their jihad to the borderless Internet. China has become the new superpower. Global markets are bouncing up and down. The Arab Spring has sprung unrest across the Middle East. Syria is in utter turmoil. Egypt, Libya and now North Korea have unclear futures. Iran is determined to add nuclear energy to its arsenal, heightening its strained relations with the West. America is still in a war with extremists in Afghanistan. We're also in a new warless battle to quell violent uprisings back in Iraq.

Now is not the time for a political novice, wimp or sheepish patriot in the Oval Office. More than ever, we need a profoundly wise person like Thomas Jefferson, who moved along a flailing new republic while maneuvering a war with Tripoli, or like Ronald Reagan, who was savvy and tough enough to build up the economy while toppling the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall.

6) Who has clear and present moral fortitude?

For our Founding Fathers, moral fortitude was dependent upon the liberties of religion, not the laws of men. Samuel Adams was correct when he wrote in a 1749 essay, "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

Temptations are abundant when power is combined with position, and none is greater than the presidency. That is why it is mandatory that the next occupant of the White House demonstrate a life mastery over himself and the wiles of evil and corruption.

That doesn't mean the next president must be perfect, but he must be a moral model and have the ability to admit faults and learn from mistakes.

I believe what George Washington said: "A good moral character is the first essential in a man." But I also believe this Washington quote: "We must take human nature as we find it. Perfection falls not to the share of mortals."

CONTINUED:

http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2012/01/03/10_questions_to_find_our_next_president_part_1

 

LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION: Would They Take A Bullet?

The Iowa Presidential debate included excellent signs of progress, and some very frustrating misconceptions about the Constitution. I was amazed and pleased to hear questions about the 10th Amendment and the role of government. Several times the debate moderators asked about the Constitution in relation to certain policy issues.


Folks, this is FABULOUS NEWS!! Never before in my lifetime has the Constitution been a significant part of a Presidential debate. The media and candidates are finally discussing the proper role of Federal government in the context of Constitutional limitations. I’m grateful for the efforts of the Tea Party movement, and people like you, for getting our so-called leaders to finally start asking the right questions.


Now for the frustrating part: The questions and answers last night revealed how far we have to go. I think we’ve gotten our proverbial ship turned in the right direction, but we’ve been off course for so long that it will take a while for us to get back to where we need to be. Several of the candidates discussed the 10th Amendment, state sovereignty, and Constitutional limits on the Federal government. However, they’re answers often revealed gaps in their understanding of these issues.


Let me pick on two of my favorite people as examples: Michele Bachmann was asked if it mattered whether or not an individual mandate was implemented by the Federal or State government in relation to the 10th Amendment. She answered "No" when actually it does matter. She could have used this question as an opportunity to show her Constitutional "chops". She understands that government at any level can't impose an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, however, her answer made it seem as if she didn’t understand the primary purpose of the 10th Amendment (to limit Federal powers and defend State authority). A more informative answer would have been, “Yes it matters. The 10th Amendment prevents the Federal government from implementing an individual mandate, it does not prevent States from doing so. However, other parts of the Constitution do protect individual Americans from such a mandate, even when it is a State attempting to force Americans to buy insurance.” Again, she may knows this, but she didn’t say it.


This may seem like picking nits, but it’s not. This is a VERY important point. Especially for a candidate like Bachmann. She’s running as a Constitutionalist. Her base voters are watching for signs that she can lead by example. Educating the American people about why and how the Constitution functions is a key job requirement.


Ron Paul answered essentially the same question next. He corrected Michele, by pointing out that States have the right under the Constitution to do “bad things.” He pointed out that the 10th Amendment protects States from Federal intrusion into State matters. However, he forgot the important point that the Constitution still requires the Federal government to protect certain fundamental rights of individual Americans against violation by government, even when it’s State government committing the violation. Again, Dr. Paul may know this, but his answer didn’t reflect such knowledge. Again, this is a VERY important point.


I know that candidate debates are stressful and it’s easy to give less-than-perfect answers. I’ve been a Congressional candidate and I’ve participated in televised candidate debates. I’ve certainly given an occasional answer that could have been better. But I also know that when it came to my core values, my answers were always dead on. They flowed from truths held deeply. I believe Dr. Paul’s and Mrs. Bachmann’s answers reflect understandings of the Constitution that are better than most, but still need some work.


The good news is that both of these answers reflect a quantum leap forward in the respect for the Constitution in our national debates. The fact that these issues were discussed at all is a victory for America. However, several answers in the Iowa debate reflect how far we have to go. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann are two of the most sincere followers of the Constitution we have in Washington. I believe that they both truly desire to restore our Constitutional Republic. Yet even they apparently have some serious gaps in their understanding of how the Constitution is supposed to work, or have a difficult time articulating that understanding.


These gaps will be corrected, as long as we elect individuals who genuinely desire to follow the Constitution. If given the chance to run the country, either Michele or Ron will apply Constitutional principles to government. In doing so, they will continue to refine their own understanding of the Constitution.


So, the question for us is this: which candidates genuinely want to follow the Constitution? This question focuses on the deepest motives of the candidates. If you know what motivates a person, you can accurately predict what they will do under any circumstances. Pick a candidate that is willing to sacrifice themselves to protect the Constitution and you will find a candidate that will restore America’s greatness. They may make mistakes, but regardless of occasional mistakes, such a candidate would make great strides in the right direction.


Before you decide who to support in the upcoming elections ask yourself: “Would this candidate lay down their life for the country?” "Would they take a bullet?" We must support the candidate that is motivated by a genuine desire to save America, and is willing to give anything to achieve that goal. This is the first qualification that our next President must have. If they are also able to speak eloquently and motivate others, that would be great too, but it’s not as important as their proper motive to lead. All other “qualifications” are secondary to proper, self-sacrificial motives.


Countless soldiers have laid down their lives, often dying terrifying deaths far from home, in order to defend America. America has no chance to survive if we can’t find one Presidential candidate that has the same attitude toward his or her duty the country.


Based on personal knowledge I’m convinced that both Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann have the motives I’ve described here. I could be wrong. I don’t agree with either of them on every subject, and Michele has at least one vote that made me question her commitment to the Constitution. However, based upon what I know about her and Ron, I’m still convinced that their motives are pure.


I don’t know enough about all the other candidates to make the same judgment. I know MANY have proven that they are not motivated to restore the Constitution. Others may be. I simply don’t know yet. Whoever you decide to support, please consider their motives as the most important of qualifications. In Liberty,



Van Irion
Co-Founder, Lead Counsel
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION