This is a good, rational discussion of a heated issue. Mr. Simpson is right about constitutionality. I’m sorry the discussion never turned to root of the problem. Lobbying is an inevitable consequence of a gigantic government that massively redistributes wealth and regulates almost every aspect of our lives. There are 34,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC. They compete over all the money filtering through our government. If you want less lobbying, advocate less government.

I heard these mentioned in opposition to Big Media’s consensus that ideas about state’s rights, nullification, and sovereignty are reserved for racist, red-neck whack-jobs.

All from wikipedia:

The resolutions opposed the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, that extended the powers of the federal government. They argued that the Constitution was a “compact” or agreement among the states. Therefore, the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it and that if the federal government assumed such powers, acts under them would be void. So, states could decide the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions. The Kentucky state legislature passed the first resolution on November 16, 1798 and the second on December 3, 1799.

James Madison wrote the Virginia Resolution. The Virginia state legislature passed it on December 24, 1798.

Alexander Hamilton, then building up the army, suggested sending it into Virginia, on some “obvious pretext.” Measures would be taken, Hamilton hinted to an ally in Congress, “to act upon the laws and put Virginia to the Test of resistance.”

I envision us looking back at this statement with great sadness. Let it not be said that no one tried to prevent what is about about to happen.

I’m glad I was able to find a transcript of Congressman Ron Paul’s statement. Youtube videos sometimes vanish. I’m storing the transcript here.

* Healthcare legislation unconstitutional because it treats citizens of different states differently.
* “Patriot” Act mandates that money managers be agents of the FBI & IRS.
 
 
 

* Sacraficing Security for Liberty
* Ridiculous executive pay for Fannie & Freddie executives. They run bankrupt, government subsidized companies. Congress should regulate these pseduo-government companies, instead of sticking their noses into the business of private enterprises.
* Idiotic Federal Reserve policies to withdraw liquidity and preserve our phony recovery.
* Government propping up home prices. Talking heading claiming recovery.

You get up to five years in prison for compensating a bone marrow donor. In the IJ’s argument in the videos below, they make a point to distinguish bone marrow donors from kidney donors. They are working toward a limited goal, and have a reason for setting a limited goal. Philosophically (and constitutionally) there is no reason for the government to make compensation illegal for ANY organ or tissue donation.

Every year, 80,000 people in the U.S. need a kidney donation. 20,000 are available. Why not legalize compensation?

Every year, 1,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Minorities are hit especially hard. Common sense suggests that offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law makes that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

That is why on October 28, 2009, adults with deadly blood diseases, the parents of sick children, a California nonprofit and a world-renowned medical doctor who specializes in bone marrow research joined with the Institute for Justice to launch a legal fight against the U.S. Attorney General to put an end to a ban on offering compensation for bone marrow donors.

click here for more on the case
click here to read more about the superheroes at the Institute for Justice

Press conference:

Q&A:

In the last weeks of the Bush-Cheney administration, FBI Director Robert Mueller and then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey rushed into law such unbounded expansions of the FBI’s domestic surveillance powers that I was stunned. Years ago, I had often and critically reported on J. Edgar Hoover’s ravenous invasions of Americans’ personal privacy rights, including mine; but these new FBI guidelines, taking effect last Dec. 1, are unsparingly un-American.

As described by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an ever-watchful guardian of the Constitution, these Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations authorize the FBI – without going to a court – “to open investigative ‘assessments’ of any American without any factual predicate or suspicion. Such ‘assessments’ allow the use of intrusive techniques to surreptitiously collect information on people suspected of no wrongdoing and no connection with any foreign entity. These inquiries may include the collection of information from online sources and commercial databases.

. . . .

President Obama has expressed no objections to these radical revisions of the Constitution, a founding document he used to educate students about at the University of Chicago. His attorney general, Eric Holder, said calmly during his Senate confirmation hearing: “The guidelines are necessary because the FBI is changing its mission … from a pure investigating agency to one that deals with national security.” (Read more from wnd.com)

I know bullshit when I see it. Consider CNN’s bias, accusatory coverage of a healthcare worker who doesn’t want government-mandated injections:

I have the very strong impression that the annual government-media blitz about flu is nothing but pandering to the medical industrial complex. Somebody is making a killing off the millions of flu shots our government is increasingly requiring people to take.

Prison Planet: Vaccine revolt! Swine flu vaccine support crumbles as flimsy rationale for H1N1 shots becomes apparent

Judge Andrew Napolitano on the constitution perspective on this issue:

Ha! Doctor tells it like it is. (don’t expect him to be invited back):

N.J. Mandatory Flu Shots for Preschoolers Cause Outrage

U.S. military troops will begin getting required swine flu shots in the next week to 10 days

Obama to require everyone to get THREE flu shots (more media scare tactics):

A chink in the armor: CBS: Swine Flu Cases Overestimated? (CBS !?)

Flu Vaccine Brainwashing In Prime Time ABC Show

Nurses got sick from the “swine flu” vaccine in Sweden • UPDATE – 1 suspected death Annika Linde, director of The Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control (SMI) manages to spin this into something positive by stating “The vaccine has more side effects than the normal flu vaccine. It is a sign that proves that it gives an effective protection.”

Doctors in Berlin refuse to give “swine flu” jab

Big pharma, government officials and media collude in “biggest profiteering scheme” ever, reports Evelyn Pringle

Here are excerpts from an article on lewrockwell.com:

With a Consumer Reports poll showing nearly 2/3rds of U.S. parents will hold off on having their children vaccinated with the H1N1 late-2009 season flu vaccine, health authorities are likely to resort to scare tactics as they have in past years to induce parents into having their children vaccinated.

. . . .

The U.S. government has ordered 250 million doses of the H1N1 late-2009 flu strain vaccine from five suppliers: MedImmune, a unit of AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis (France), Australia’s CSL, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. In past years the CDC ordered over 100 million doses of the seasonal flu vaccine.

Recognizing resistance to flu vaccination, flu shots are not just being offered at clinics this year. There is coercion at schools, hospitals and workplaces to undergo flu vaccination. The military must take the vaccine.

Reported cases of the flu are likely to be on the upswing as human immunity declines with the seasonal tilt of the Earth away from the sun in northern latitudes, thus reducing intensity of vitamin D-producing solar ultraviolet-B radiation. Despite doing the obvious – promoting vitamin D supplements – vaccines are forced onto the public.

. . . .

According to package inserts, none of the current vaccines approved by the FDA have been tested for use among pregnant females or in children below the age of 2 for Medimmune Flumist®, or for injectable vaccines, not below age 18 for CSL (Australia) vaccine; not below age 4 for Novartis (UK-USA) vaccine; not below 6 months of age for Sanofi Pasteur (France) vaccine. However, these vaccines are being widely promoted for use among pregnant women and very young infants.

. . . .

In another misdirection, the Centers for Disease Control continues to advise the public to undergo vaccination for the seasonal flu in addition to the novel H1N1 late-2009 season triple reassortant flu. However, according to the CDC’s own website, 99% of all influenza A viruses currently in circulation (late September 2009) are the late-2009 H1N1 viruses. The seasonal flu strains have virtually disappeared. Seasonal flu shots would be superfluous and even problematic.

Dr. Racaniello asks: “Why would anyone consider receiving this vaccine?” Yet this is being promoted by the CDC and this recommendation is being parroted by the news media.

. . . .

The news media is aiding and abetting the flu hysteria, dramatizing every flu-related death even when there has been no laboratory confirmation that the H1N1 flu strain was involved, and serves as a free publicity agent for vaccine makers. Behind the scenes there must be mumblings to news reporters they are not to print or air negative reports that would cause the public to lose confidence in the nation’s vaccination program.

An ABC News report cites US health officials as saying low vaccination rates “could have dire consequences,” despite the fact this flu outbreak has produced fewer deaths than the typical seasonal flu and did not result in abnormal mortality as it swept through South America during its summer flu season there.

Complicity between vaccine makers, public health authorities and the news media maintains undeserved public confidence in a flu vaccination program that often only offers side effects and no disease prevention or reduction in mortality.

. . . .

Lack of evidence of effectiveness

While older adults are at the greatest risk for dying from the flu, surprisingly there is only one randomized controlled study among older persons (60 years and up) which reported a 33% reduction in flu-like illness and a 56% reduction in circulating viral count. But this means the vaccine was ineffective in most people in regard to preventing symptoms. [Journal American Medical Assn 1994; 272:1661–1665]

Centers for Disease Control officials concede the ability of flu vaccines to generate sufficient antibodies and effectively reduce symptoms and prevent death is only about 30–50% among currently licensed vaccines. [Current Topics Microbiology Immunology 2009; 333:413–29]

Data collected over 33 flu seasons shows flu vaccination reduced the death rate substantially less than expected. [Journal American Medical Assn 2003; 289: 179–86; Archives Internal Medicine 2005; 165: 265–72]

But news reporters must put a positive face on flu vaccination, despite evidence to the contrary.

Mismatched vaccines

Another major problem is that the flu viruses in the vaccines often do not match the flu viruses in circulation in the population. [Vaccine 2008; 26 (Supplement 4): D5–D9]

For example, in 2007 the trivalent flu vaccine (contained 3 strains of the flu) was only 40% protective due to mismatched flu strains. [Cleve Clin J Med. 2008 Dec; 75(12):865–70] The percentage of viruses that were matched to vaccine strains was 5% (3 of 62) in 2004–2005, 5% (2 of 42) in 2005–2006, and 91% (85 of 93) in 2006–2007. [J Infect Dis. 2009 Jan 15; 199(2):159–67]

In the 8 years spanning 1998–2005, flu vaccine mismatch occurred in 4 of those years including both the 2003–04 and 2004–05 consecutive seasons. The nation had no protection beyond natural immunity in many recent flu seasons. Due to flu strain mismatch, 84% of the vaccinees over 75 years of age who received the flu vaccine in 1997–98 were not protected against infection. [J. Medical Virology 61:94–99, 2000] The public is never alerted to this.

A major review encompassing 64 published studies which evaluated the ability of flu vaccines to reduce symptoms or viral count showed overall effectiveness of just 23% during seasons when the flu strain in the vaccine matched the virus in circulation within the population. Effectiveness did not differ from years when vaccines were mismatched. [Lancet 2005; 366:1165–1174]

In the end, the question of whether or not to get a flu shot should be made by patients consulting with their doctors, not by government.

I posted this video a while ago (here), but have found some good criticism of it.

I hate his implication that this fight for Constitutional rights is racially motivated. The shit you have to put up with when you believe in liberty . . .

Here’s a criticism of the video from blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com:
1. Turley is absolutely correct that “decades of precedent” in the courts oppose the view that the federal government is not authorized to enact a national health care plan. But, what he fails to point out, is that under the original meaning, intention and understanding of the Constitution – these kinds of powers would have been unthinkable. The court is, in plain English, wrong. Learn more here.

2. Neither the host nor Turley seem to have any clue about nullification – or its current efforts. Nullification has nothing to do with getting a positive ruling from the Supreme Court. It’s when a state passes a law simply refusing to implement a federal law. In fact, it has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been used to resist laws against free speech, fugitive slave laws, the use of the militia in war and more. Hardly “right-wing” at all. Learn more here.

3. Nullification has also been used quite recently – and effectively too. Approximately two-dozen states refused to implement the Bush-era Real ID act. And guess what – the courts aren’t needed, and neither is Congress. The law is a dead letter. Null and void.

4. Oh, and that pesky general Welfare clause. It doesn’t mean what they’re implying – at all. In fact, it was meant as a strict limitation on power. Here’s what James Madison had to say about it – “With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

If my choice is the opinion of James Madision vs Jonathan Turley, I think I’m safe going with Madison.

Here’s what I think is most important…What both Olberman’s stand-in and Professor Turley get wrong is this – the 10th Amendment Movement is not about asking politicians to follow the Constitution. It’s not about getting permission from the Supreme Court to exercise our rights. It’s not about going to the federal government at all. Those are all failed strategies.

This movement is about moving back towards Constitutional governance whether they want us to or not.

Whether it’s 20+ states nullifying real ID, or 2 states nullifying some federal gun regulations, or 13 states nullifying federal marijuana laws, or states nullifying a national health care plan, this is about state-level activism. And, if enough states do it, the feds can’t do anything to stop it. (Read more from blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com)

This is a great little interview. The part at the end about Obama eviscerating the anti-war movement is especially interesting.

How can Congress get around the Tenth Amendment and regulate almost every aspect of American life?

One way is by claiming that the Tenth Amendment doesn’t apply because Congress is merely acting within the scope of its enumerated powers. But to make this claim, one must assume that some of the enumerated powers are much broader than they really are.

One of the enumerated powers cited by advocates of the modern monster-state is the Commerce Power. This derives primarily from two sources:

(1) the Constitution’s grant to Congress of authority to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States” and

(2) the Constitution’s grant to Congress of authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers. . .”

According to promoters of the monster-state, those constitutional phrases go further than allowing Congress to regulate trade among the states. They also allow Congress to control manufacturing, wages, agriculture, crime, mining, land use, firearm possession, and a range of other activities.

How can they justify this? Basically, they make two arguments. The first argument was spun during the New Deal by a University of Chicago law professor. (Too many law professors spend entirely too much time fabricating constitutional theories to promote big government.)

This professor argued that during the Founding Era the word “commerce” meant more than trade. Instead, he contended, “commerce” included all gainful economic activities. Hence Congress has a license to regulate the entire economy.

An even broader version of this theory was published more recently by a Yale law professor. He maintains that “commerce” means any human interaction – so the federal government can regulate almost anything, so long as it doesn’t trample one of the specific guarantees in the Constitution, such as Free Speech.

On investigation, however, the claim that “commerce” meant “all gainful activities” or “all interactions” turns out to be completely untrue. It flies in the face of much of what we know about the Founding Era, including specific representations by leading Founders that most regulation would be reserved to the states.

But because it is sometimes necessary to prove the obvious, several other academics (such as Georgetown University’s Randy Barnett and I) have examined literally thousands of appearances of the word “commerce” in the historical records from the Founding Era. And those records show clearly that “Commerce” in the Constitution means trade and associated activities, but no more (e.g., here).

The second argument for an almost unlimited Commerce Power currently prevails on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Don’t let anyone tell you the present court is “conservative” on such matters.) This argument acknowledges that when the Founders wrote “Commerce,” they meant only trade and a few allied activities, such as navigation.

But it goes on to say that modern economic life, unlike life during the Founding Era, is highly interdependent, so it is now “necessary and proper” for Congress to regulate everything that substantially affects commerce. . . . (Read more from tenthamendmentcenter.com)

See MSNBC slander 10th Amendment advocates:

Criticism here.

• The federal government has lost count of the number of federal crimes. It is a crime to be in possession of a certain type of lobster.
• Speaking to the police cannot help you. What you say can, famously, “be used against you,” but IT CANNOT BE USED TO HELP YOU. If something you tell police is demonstrative of your innocence, it is legally hearsay.
• No rush to plead guilty.
• 25% of convicts exonerated by DNA evidence had made incriminating statements to police.
• Even perfectly innocent people can make small missteps when under interrogation.
• Even if you only tell truthful and innocent information, it can still be used against you.
• Ohio v. Reiner. “Truthful responses of an innocent witness . . . may provide the government with incriminating evidence.”
• Police might misremember something you said during a several-hour interrogation.