“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as oppressive as the government from which we separated.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
Today, the California Council of Churches IMPACT, which represents 21 different denominations and over 1.5 million members within the mainstream and progressive Protestant communities of faith, endorsed Proposition 19, the initiative to control and tax cannabis in California.
“Proposition 19 is the moral choice for California,” said Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director of the California Council of Churches IMPACT. “The prohibition of marijuana has failed. It’s created a culture of criminality around a substance that is less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco, which are both legal, controlled, and taxed. Let’s control marijuana like alcohol by passing Proposition 19 in November.” (Read more from yeson19.com)
In many ways, this is a nullification issue, i.e. states imposing their authority under the 10th amendment over unconstitutional federal laws.
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and six other states filed a brief in federal court in Montana on Monday, arguing that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate firearms manufactured and sold within their borders.
The friend-of-the-court brief seeks to bolster arguments made by the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) that legislation passed in that state exempts Montana-made guns from federal taxation, registration, licensing, marking or record-keeping requirements.
Utah adopted similar legislation last session. Tennessee, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota and Wyoming have done so as well, asserting it as an exercise of their authority under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The brief asks that court to recognize that “the 10th Amendment is not an empty promise to the states, but a vital guarantor of rights retained by the states, including the right to regulate purely intrastate activities.”
Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming joined in the Utah brief. (Read more from lewrockwell.com)
The President on Wednesday may have reassured Americans that the state of the Union is “strong,” but, just the week before, a group of Vermont secessionists declared their intention to seek political power in a quest to get their state to quit the Union altogether. On Jan. 15, in the state capital of Montpelier, nine candidates for statewide office gathered in a tiny room at the Capitol Plaza Hotel, to announce they wanted a divorce from the United States of America. “For the first time in over 150 years, secession and political independence from the U.S. will be front and center in a statewide New England political campaign,” said Thomas Naylor, 73, one of the leaders of the campaign.
A former Duke University economics professor, Naylor heads up the Second Vermont Republic, which he describes as “left-libertarian, anti-big government, anti-empire, antiwar, with small is beautiful as our guiding philosophy.” The group not only advocates the peaceful secession of Vermont but has minted its own silver “token” — valued at $25 — and, as part of a publishing venture with another secessionist group, runs a monthly newspaper called Vermont Commons, with a circulation of 10,000. According to a 2007 poll, they have support from at least 13% of state voters. The campaign slogan, Naylor told me, is “Imagine Free Vermont.” (Read more from time.com)
1. War: President Obama’s popularity will plummet precipitously, causing him to declare partial victory and begin the rhetoric of troop withdrawal. (Yes, the decision will be made for political reasons.) If I’m wrong about 2010, then it’ll certainly happen before the presidential election of 2012.
2. Healthcare: Nullification movements in various states will fail, though they’ll strengthen the organization of the liberty movement in general and embolden widespread discontent.
Now that our overlords have put themselves in charge of our health, politicians will begin to play with their newly created political footballs: should we pay for abortions? should we pay for prayer therapy? lets get those smokers/elderly/fat people.
There will be fiascoes and scandals, similar to what followed the bank bailouts, as the many crooks involved compete for government privilege.
3. Politics: Despite intense propaganda in the media and fund raising by establishment organizations, at least one hardcore fiscal conservative (Schiff and/or Paul) will be elected to the Senate. Many Republicans will jump on the liberty bandwagon causing them to gain ground in both houses of Congress, winning back one of them.
4. Economy: I’ve been surprised by our economy’s resilience thus far. Perhaps 2008/2009 will be remembered like 1930/1931, as recovery years. By the end of 2010, the wheels will begin to fall off this tortured bus. Freedom will be blamed and more government will be proposed.
5. State’s rights: States in the U.S. as well as in Europe will grow increasingly disenchanted with their government’s incompetence and fiscal irresponsibility. Look for issues of union, cession, sovereignty, nullification to gain increased significance.
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)
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)
“Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be ‘disastrous’ for Texas.” (Read more from lewrockwell.com)
Never thought I’d say it, but God bless Texas – for this, as well as their fanatic devotion to the 2nd amendment.
Today, the California Council of Churches IMPACT, which represents 21 different denominations and over 1.5 million members within the mainstream and progressive Protestant communities of faith, endorsed Proposition 19, the initiative to control and tax cannabis in California.
(Read more from yeson19.com)
Subscribe RSS