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!

No, James Madison did not Reject Nullification

Tenth Amendment Center, January 4, 2014

For some reason, some conservative commentators keep propagating the historical lie that James Madison “rejected nullification.” James Madison did no such thing.

Even while opposing a bastardized proposal for nullification created out of thin air in South Carolina, he still supported nullification as a “natural right.”

SOUTH CAROLINA

In Madison’s “notes on nullification” during the later days of his life, he explicitly rejected a very specific doctrine of nullification proposed by South Carolina. But during the same time period, he referred to “nullification…as a natural right”

Madison’s arguments against this doctrine are hard to dispute. Here’s what he wrote:

This brings us to the expedient lately advanced, which claims for a single state a right to appeal against an exercise of power by the government of the United States decided by the state to be unconstitutional, to the parties to the constitutional compact; the decision of the state to have the effect of nullifying the act of the government of the United States, unless the decision of the state be reversed by three-fourths of the parties.

The distinguished names and high authorities which appear to have asserted and given a practical scope to this doctrine, entitle it to a respect which it might be difficult otherwise to feel for it.

If the doctrine were to be understood as requiring the three-fourths of the states to sustain, instead of that proportion to reverse the decision of the appealing state, the decision to be without effect during the appeal, it would be sufficient to remark, that this extra-constitutional course might well give way to that marked out by the Constitution, which authorizes two-thirds of the states to institute and three-fourths to effectuate an amendment of the Constitution,  establishing a permanent rule of the highest authority, in place of an irregular precedent of construction only.

But it is understood that the nullifying doctrine imports that the decision of the state is to be presumed valid, and that it overrules the law of the United States, unless overruled by three-fourths of the states.

See that?  READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE!

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

Smashing Myths: Southern States and Nullification

Slavery was a morally corrupt and abhorrent institution that should have never existed.

No question. No debate.

Now that we have that out of the way, let’s talk about nullification’s history in the Southern states prior to the Civil War.

Over time, a Paul Bunyan type myth has grown suggesting that the Southern states were strong advocates of nullification as a means to protect their institution of slavery. In 2011, Rachel Maddow presented a news segment on her show about nullification. She stated that John C. Calhoun was a proponent of both slavery and nullification, more than implying the two are linked.

If that was the case, it would be pretty gross.

But it’s not.

Southern states never attempted to nullify anything in defense of slavery.

There is no dispute that Calhoun defended slavery. He was a slaver. In that sense, he’s a reprehensible character. And he also advocated for nullification.

However, Calhoun didn’t suggest using nullification as a means to maintain slavery. During the Nullification Crisis, Calhoun advocated the nullification doctrine as a means to protect Southern states against high tariffs that were impacting the Southern exports. Again, he advocated nullification against tariffs not for the promotion of slavery. During her televised segment, Maddow never mentioned the word, “tariffs.” Not once.

To demonize nullification because a slaver advocated the principle for something unrelated to slavery is nothing more than a textbook ad hominem attack.

If you bought into that false narrative, you should be forgiven. After all, conventional wisdom links the two. But now you know the truth. And if your mistaken perception that nullification was all about slavery led you to abhor the doctrine, the actual history of nullification should lead you to embrace the principles with abandon!

Leading up to the Civil War, Northern state Senators and Representatives stood up for the due process rights of their black citizens and passed Personal Liberty Laws, effectively nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

This act counts among the most evil pieces of legislation in American history. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 made a farce of due process, allowing for the arrest of a suspected runaway slave based on the word of the “property owner.” He simply had to swear an affidavit attesting to his “ownership” of the person in question, and he was allowed to drag that man or woman back South into slavery. The accused wasn’t even allowed to present evidence in his own defense. The act was meant to protect the “property” of slave holders, but many free blacks found themselves accused of escaping slavery and faced the prospect of living out their life on a plantation. Kidnapping of free blacks was not unusual. And northerners understood that even an accused runaway should remain innocent until proven guilty, and enjoy basic due process rights.

Instead of simply submitting to federal authority and quietly participating in constitutionally dubious and morally repugnant fugitive-slave roundups, northern lawmakers aggressively resisted the fugitive slave acts. Officials in these states did everything within their power to thwart enforcement, including denying federal agents the use of jails, and even impeaching state officials who lent support to fugitive-slave claimants.

The Michigan legislature passed a law guaranteeing habeas corpus rights and a jury trial to any accused runaway, all in defiance of federal “law.” Michigan also prohibited the use of state or local jails by slave catchers. The Wisconsin’s Supreme Court even ruled the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional in the wake of the Joshua Glover case.  Vermont passed a “Habeas Corpus” law requiring state officials to aid captured slaves, defying provisions in the Fugitive Slave Act.

Southerners were not pleased. They needed northern submission to central authority to maintain slavery. The idea that southerners were all about “states’ rights” is something of a myth. They were for state sovereignty when it suited them. But when it came to slavery, they were the ardent nationalists, pleading for strong federal action. It was the northern states were asserting their sovereignty and nullifying an unconstitutional act.

Virginia Governor John B. Floyd warned that Northern nullification efforts of the Fugitive Slave Act could lead to the South to secede.

It did.

South Carolina  lists Northern nullification as one of their reasons to secede in their Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Caroline from the Federal Union:

The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. [Emphasis added]

CONTINUE READING:  http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/smashing-myths-southern-states-and-nullification/#.UgJ4_WR4YTg

Ken Blackwell: Constitution’s Limits Threaten in an Obama Second Term

Note: This column was coauthored by Ken Klukowski, a Breitbart.com columnist


Public officials and pundits are still digesting the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision in NFIB v. Sebelius. Not yet discussed are the extraordinary implications for the size and role of government in a second Obama term in light of President Obama’s new stump speech, as it is clear there is not a reliable majority on the Court to restrain government power by enforcing the limits imposed by the Constitution.

Most provisions in the Constitution fall into two categories. The first are authority provisions, explaining the structure and powers of government. The second are liberty provisions, declaring certain rights of the people.

The original Constitution had only the former, because the latter were regarded as superfluous. If something was not found in a specific authority clause, it was automatically illegal and beyond the purview of the federal government. Political backlash from the Anti-Federalists and others led to some states threatening to withhold ratification unless a Bill of Rights was promptly added. Likely our fourth president James Madison would have lost his first congressional race to our fifth president James Monroe had Mr. Madison not joined Mr. Monroe’s call to add the Bill of Rights to the nascent Supreme Law.

Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of our Constitution is that it is a written document. It is written so that all can see what the powers of the national government are, and guaranteeing in the Tenth Amendment that all powers not specifically granted to the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people. This doctrine of enumerated powers is the cornerstone of our constitutional order and the federal system.

We wrote in our second book that if President Obama won a second term, Americans’ liberties would only be as secure as the courts were faithful to properly exercise their power of judicial review to invalidate actions that violate the Constitution. Whether invalidating unconstitutional legislation passed by Congress or unconstitutional executive actions, the courts must not flinch when cases are properly brought to them.

Mr. Madison explained that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” for checks and balances to work. Each branch must boldly discharge its constitutional duty. Part of the tragedy of the Obamacare decision is realizing that the current membership of the Supreme Court will not exercise robust judicial review.

CONTINUED: 

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2012/07/13/constitutions_limits_threaten_in_an_obama_second_term/page/full/

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)

The Clear Choice in NC Senate District 18

Note:  CCTA is a non partisan organization.  We do not endorse any particular candidate or political party.  News items are presented for you the reader to help you become informed and reach your own conclusions.

NC Senate District 18 has three Republican candidates in the primary election. There’s one clear choice – Glen Bradley. Bradley is the only candidate with any experience in public office. In fact Bradley won his seat in House District 49 even though he was outspent by his Democratic opponent by a margin of 7 to 1.

As a freshman legislator Bradley wrote HB 587 – the NC Job Growth through Regulatory Reform bill. Rep. Bradley understands the negative effect that state regulations have on job growth. “Under intense pressure from tens of thousands of concerned North Carolina citizens, the majority of the text of HB 587 was put into Senate Bill 781 Regulatory Reform and became the crown jewel jobs piece of the Joint Committee's Regulatory Reform bill, which [was] passed overriding the Governor's veto.”

Far too many politicians proclaim their support for the Constitution but their “support” translates into a campaign slogan devoid of substance. Not so with Bradley. As a member of the NC House he took his oaths to uphold the US Constitution and NC Constitution seriously. Bradley’s commitment to the letter and spirit of the US Constitution placed him at odds with his own party’s leadership.

The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution reads,

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 states had not agreed to a system in which they would submit without protest to whatever the federal government should do. To the contrary, the states established a federal government with limited powers, and reserved for themselves all powers they did not delegate to that government. Any measures the federal government should take beyond the powers delegated to it are absolutely void. The federal government, which the states themselves created, cannot hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation and cannot decide for itself what the extent of its own powers are. That would mean the people were governed by the mere discretion of their rulers rather than by the Constitution. (Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Nullification – How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc. 2010. 47-48).

The 10th amendment is dynamic and relevant – it’s also historically grounded in the KY and VA Resolutions of 1798. Unfortunately one of the candidates running against Rep. Bradley commented, “I think when you talk to Glen you’ll find ... He’s going to talk about the constitution and things like that, which is fine … we just have different priorities. The things I see him advocating for have to do a lot with people’s personal liberties” … voters “aren’t sending me down to the General Assembly to nullify all of the federal laws we don’t like. Nullification is a strategy that usually doesn’t get you any closer to your goal,” he added. “It’s a waste of time [bold italics added].”

Such an attitude of disrespect for the Constitution in general and the 10th Amendment in particular is far too common among the GOP in the NC legislature. It’s tragic when a candidate believes that nullification involves “federal laws we don’t like.” Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution specifies the powers delegated to Congress. Any laws that are not in harmony with these delegated powers are unconstitutional and subject to nullification by the states.

In NC the legislature had an anemic response to Obamacare- they drafted a resolution requesting the state’s Attorney General to sue the federal government. This was vetoed by the Governor. However if it passed all that would have been accomplished would have been a lawsuit – there was no guarantee that national health care would have been stopped in NC. The NC legislature could have invoked the 10th amendment and declared that there is no Constitutional authority for every citizen to obtain health care. The NC state assembly has this power which the leadership refuses to use.

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2011 into law on December 31, 2011. Two sections of the NDAA subjects US citizens to indefinite detention without due process, i.e., without a trial. The federal government now claims it has the authority to kidnap any US citizen it merely suspects of terrorism. This is tyranny which the states can and should nullify.

Virginia became the first state to nullify these provisions of the NDAA on April 18, 2012:  On Wednesday, the Virginia legislature overwhelmingly passed a law that forbids state agencies from cooperating with any federal attempt to exercise the indefinite detention without due process provisions written into sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act. HB1160 “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a United States citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

Rep. Bradley has gone on the record to voice his opposition to those provisions of the NDAA which involve indefinite detention of US citizens without due process. Bradley also publicly stated his intention to introduce a resolution against these provisions of the NDAA in the coming short session. The voters in the 18th Senate District need to understand what’s at stake and elect Glen Bradley.

 http://www.glenbradley2012.com/index.php

Oath Keepers: Michael LeMieux: NDAA FOLLOW-UP AND FURTHER TREASONOUS ACTS

http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael160.htm

By Michael LeMieux
January 4, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Directly on the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), that arguably makes US Citizens detainable by the military, comes the coup de grace in the form of a new bill called the "Enemy Expatriation Act."

But before I get into this bill let me preface that with a few observations.

First, our nation was founded upon the principle of individual liberty and self-determination. A belief that all men were created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights imbued within each of us at the time of our birth. We did not, and do not, derive our rights from government and therefore cannot legally have them taken from us by that government.

Second, as our Declaration of Independence states, the purpose of government is to secure the rights of its citizens, and as important, they derive their powers from the consent of the people. I ask you to think upon the following question in light of the previous statement: If the government derives its power from the people, how can the government wield power that the people do not have? If the people do not have such a power then the government, on their behalf, cannot likewise yield such power.

Third, the federal government was created by consent and compact, a Constitution. Within that Constitution the branches of government were laid out, defined, and scope assigned. Each branch of government was given certain powers to act for the betterment of the nation as representatives of a collective set of nation states that recognized the need for a single voice in foreign matters and as an arbiter between the states to ensure regular trade and commerce between the states and settle disputes.

To ensure that the federal government did not go further than the prescribed powers they enumerated the legislative powers of the government to a few distinct areas (Article 1, Section 8). But they went a step further, to emphasize the point to the federal government and to put to rest some resistance within the states, that federal government would not stay confined, they added the Tenth Amendment stating: "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."

Now I ask of you; with the enormity of our federal government, with its massive spending, size, and laws that reaches into every aspect of every citizen's life, is our government today one of limited power? I think the answer is a blatant no.

So how does a government, such as ours, go from limited power that literally had no direct impact on the lives of the citizens of the states to one of tyrannical proportions? You cannot make improvements to your own property without permission and paying a tribute. You have the flow of toilets and shower heads dictated to you on what you can and cannot have. We have been using incandescent light bulbs for years but now the government is forcing you to use highly toxic, mercury filled, bulbs (for our own good). And the list of expansive government powers is as long as the list of government agencies and sub-agencies within the federal government. But it did not happen overnight.

We have heard from those of this administration that they do not want crises to go to waste. This is not a new concept - every major governmental expansion has been preceded by one crises or another, manufactured or real, it does not matter. Politicians know that they can take advantage of the public, using their positions of power, during times of national crises and pass laws they know they would not be able to do otherwise.

Inch by inch, nudge by nudge, taking more and more power with each passing legislative session until one day we will (have) awake to find ourselves living under an unconstitutional tyrannical government. I do not say this lightly, I have spent most of my adult life in the service of my country and have offered up my life if need be, but I am abhorred by what I have seen her become.

This brings me to this newest legislation by "our representatives" in Congress. This is Senate bill S. 1698, entitled as the "Enemy Expatriation Act." This bill is two pages, a novelty in the age of 1,000+ page bills, and states (relevant parts):

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

CONTINUE READING:
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Michael-LeMieux--NDAA-FOLLOW-UP-AND-FURTHER-TREASONOUS-ACTS.html?soid=1102755758632&aid=NKbAnsTlgGw#fblike

With or Without Federal 'Permission'

With or Without Federal 'Permission'