Sovereign Idaho

Legendary Determination

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:53:00 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUS691La4gA

Duty. Honor. Courage.

Feared by Big Government. Hated by Big Media. Maligned by power-hungry partisans. That's what happens when organized Constitutionalists create an informed electorate that holds public servants accountable.

“These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” - Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Political action is necessary, but it is insufficient. With political action you win some battles and lose others, but every victory motivates the opposition to fight twice as hard next time. Political action alone is frustrating and causes many activists to get discouraged and give up because it never fixes the root of the problem: an ill-informed electorate.

If you think about it, an informed electorate is more powerful than political parties, Big Media, or special interest money. A sufficiently informed electorate is the reason America has preserved as much freedom as we have, and an insufficiently informed electorate is the reason we've lost as much freedom as we have.

“Education is our total strategy and truth is our only weapon,” said Robert Welch, who pioneered the modern Constitutionalist movement and designed a program that creates an informed electorate in any congressional district. To inform others, you must first inform yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUS691La4gA

Duty. Honor. Courage.

We The People have stewardship of our own freedom. What will we do with it? Preserve individual rights and national independence? Restore the Constitution? If Congress simply voted Constitutionally, the federal government would be 20% its size and 20% its cost. How's that for an economic stimulus package?

Good Money is Coined Freedom

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:43:00 +0000

Old Swiss Proverb

By Tom Dillin, Published in the Sandpoint Reader, January 20, 2011 and the Capitalist Papers, March 4, 2011

We shall be governed either by ourselves, under a Constitution, or else we shall be governed by the new kind of master invented in our day, the bureaucrat, and by the impenetrable web of rules that he fabricates and enforces. Let us stand together against the rule of bureaucracy, and for liberty and the Constitution. - Larry P. Arnn, President of Hillsdale College Imprimis, November 2010

The role of money is mostly portrayed as the instrument of greed, instead of its more prominent role as a daily instrument of freedom. When a worker spends his money, the purchase is a vote of support for another worker’s product or service. The transaction is an exchange of value given freely and received with confidence and good faith. Every day 1.5 million Idahoans vote with their dollar bills for the success or failure of products, services, churches, charities, investments, and political causes. This is a remarkable social achievement and a loving way to build a community; it is coined freedom in action.

Bad Money is Paper Serfdom
However, if any part of this voluntary interaction between individuals is interfered with, including the value of money, then freedom itself is threatened. The value of money is reduced by printing too much. When this happens, it follows that the worker’s earnings and life savings have also been devalued and dishonored. This bad money is fiat paper serfdom for it steals the blood, sweat, and tears of labor, intellect, and frugality for future happiness. Increasing the supply of fiat paper is similar to “clipping” coins by the Greek and Roman governments, a little here and there won’t be missed. Both result in money being worth less.

Today, in plain sight, our coined freedom is being “clipped” by the Federal Reserve System (Fed). Since the beginning of the Fed, in 1913, the U.S. Dollar (USD) has steadily lost buying power. Idahoans must ask, why have we allowed the Fed to confiscate 95% of the value of our good money? Is serfdom so hard to visualize? We cannot build a safe, prosperous, and free community on a fraudulent foundation of bad money.

A Little History
The story behind the move from good to bad money is very simple. The Fed abandoned gold and silver for fiat paper. The long history (since 700 B.C.) of gold and silver is proof that this bimetal approach is the most honest and successful monetary system ever created.

History also tells us that fiat paper is the most dishonest and unsuccessful system. Fiat systems eventually collapse. The collapse may come after a long period of increasingly volatile booms, busts, high interest rates, and double digit price increases. It has happened in Germany, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Yugoslavia, and Zimbabwe in modern times.

Plenty of Excuses for Bad Money
The proponents tell us not to worry; some countries have managed to get along just fine with 10-40% inflation rates for many years; this is what perpetual deficit spending does to a country.

The Fed blames Congress for the “budgetary” problem. “Follow PAYGO,” the 1990 pay-as-you-go federal law, Alan Greenspan testified repeatedly. He failed to point out that fiat paper money enables perpetual deficits.

Congress blames the business cycle, greedy businessmen, wage-cost push, and the Fed for not printing enough bad money to solve the bad money problem.

Deficit spending would automatically be curtailed and bad money would disappear, if we returned to gold and silver. To spend more than you make is a basic human weakness; gold and silver money has always kept that weakness in check.

Why Bad Money?
Governments are ensnared into bad money policy because they finance a myriad of government programs demanded by special interest groups. They know the cost is beyond the country’s means, but politicians love to “help” people, be liked, and get reelected. The consequences are overlooked, especially those that pertain to budgeting and sound economics.

The globalists also make demands for bad money in order to finance their wars, foreign corporate adventures, and the military-industrial complex. Politicians go along because they are afraid that they will appear unpatriotic, if they oppose America’s wars. Or they will be considered selfish, if they oppose “helping” poor countries.

Bankers favor bad money because they are in control and put themselves at the front of the line for new money. The first to spend bad money into a good money market has tremendous advantages because he can take advantage of the lower prices. They also earn interest on loans created out of nothing but the cost of paper and ink.

And finally, John Maynard Keynes gave us the most sinister reason for bad money, “"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." (The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919)

The Idaho Sound Money Task Force
The Idaho Sound Money Task Force is a group of citizens and state legislators, who are concerned about the failure of the Fed and the fallout of inflationist policy on every citizen of Idaho. A solution must be found before our current monetary crisis becomes unmanageable. If we wait, it will lead to panic decision making during a period of social and economic unrest.

Prognosis
The task force does not know exactly how our current predicament will unfold, but we think Idaho will experience double-digit inflation rates, much higher interest rates, higher taxes, a return to the wage and price controls of the 1960s and 1970s, and greater government intrusion into the daily lives of our citizens.

Proposed Solution
To solve this systemic problem we need to understand the problem and, most important, have a sense of how a good system should work. The statists are already at work to replace the current failed system with another just as bad, or worse.

The task force has reached a reasoned proposal that does not violate the principles of freedom and sound economics. Our sound money bill for 2011, The Idaho Constitutional Tender Act, is sponsored by Representative Lenore Barrett (R-Challis). Please ask your state representative to support Representative Barrett in this bipartisan effort.

The Central Problem
The Fed practices a fiat, fractional reserve monetary system. Fiat money has no intrinsic value, no gold or silver backing, and the supply can be increased or decreased by decree. Fractional reserve policy authorizes member banks to loan more money than they have on deposit. Both of these failed concepts inflate or deflate our currency depending upon the ease or tightness of policy in place at the time. These decisions are made in secret by a few appointed decision makers, with neither adequate nor independent audits.

Political and business pressures on such an artificial system lean toward the less frightening inflationary alternative, a policy most evident today with Quantitative Easing (QE1 and 2). The Fed pressured (in some cases panicked) our congressmen into this highly inflationist policy by telling them the alternative, an economic depression, was unthinkable.

“Quantitative Easing” is a politically correct way of saying printing money, inflating money, creating money, issuing money, debasing money, debauching money, reducing the value of money, or just more bad money. This nice sounding phrase is meant to sugar coat irresponsible inflationary actions by the Fed. The massive size of QE1 and 2, accompanied by lack of accountability, has created a confused and fearful citizenry, and for good reason.

In Human Action, page 428-429, Ludwig von Mises says there are three points policy makers must consider with an inflationist policy:

It results in overconsumption and malinvestment; it squanders capital and impairs the marketplace.
It does not remove the necessity of adjusting production and locating resources based on market realities rather than artificial government edicts. It merely postpones painful adjustments and makes them more difficult to resolve.
Inflation cannot be employed as a permanent policy because it will result in a breakdown of the monetary system.

American Prosperity
Underlying America’s prosperity has been a stable money supply brought about by the U.S. Constitution and the gold and silver policies of classical economics (now called the Austrian school of economics). Starting in 1913, we gradually moved away from classical hard money economics. The move from gold and silver to fiat paper money was gradual at first, accelerated under President Franklin Roosevelt, and then completely converted in 1971 by President Richard Nixon, who with no pretense proclaimed, “We are all Keynesians now.”

John Maynard Keynes and the Dark Side
President Nixon’s historic speech didn’t tell us about the dark side of Keynesian economics. Today, with no more natural checks and balances, decision-making is centralized in one all-powerful Fed. Chairman Ben Bernanke has used this power to increase the adjusted monetary base to unprecedented levels. Would Keynes approve or would he say we have reached a destructive level of monetary growth? QE1 and 2 are highly inflationary. We are approaching a critical socially disruptive stage with massive amounts of money unsparingly rained upon favored corporations and special interests.

The explosion of paper currency has reached an exponential level of growth (see chart). This largess is mercantilist, unchecked by common sense or fair play, and portends hyperinflation, instability, more bailouts, and price disequilibrium.

1971 Nixon closes the gold window, supply accelerates

2008 QE1 the Fed more than doubles the monetary base

2011 QE2 the Fed to add $600 billion (off the chart)

The Fed is a Mercantilist Banking System
Mercantilism is the use of the state to fulfill personal or corporate objectives. The use of public policy to improperly comingle private self-interests with public tax dollars and politically inspired legal loopholes, allows the individual or corporation to obtain influence that would otherwise not be feasible. Wherever there have been seats of power, there has been mercantilism, which eventually corrodes the process of the state and reduces individual freedom, especially, the right to property. As Thomas Jefferson said in a prescient letter to John W. Eppes in 1813, “It is a question; whether the circulation of paper, rather than of specie (gold and silver coin), is a good or an evil…I believe it to be one of those cases where mercantile clamor will bear down reason, until it is corrected by ruin.” In a letter to John Taylor in 1816, Jefferson continued, “I sincerely believe…that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

Confiscation of Property
The current system, under the Fed, exposes Idaho and her citizens and businesses to the chronic depreciation of the USD. This loss of purchasing power amounts to the incremental confiscation of their property without just compensation, in violation of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Gold and Silver Guarantee Price Stability
As long as the USD was tied to gold and silver the Fed could not increase the money supply without increasing the supply of gold and silver. This is very important because new mine production and the growth rate of goods and services each average about the same increase over time, a highly useful natural balance. Money created in excess of the gross national product is bad money.

Too much money chasing too few goods and services are the cause of rising prices. Greatly inflating the money supply is the cause of hyperinflation.

Price increases are not the actions of greedy corporations. Once the public stops misplacing blame on the private business sector and realizes that excess fiat money is the real cause of price inflation, we will have made a great leap forward to solve our monetary problem.

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Why doesn’t the Fed follow Milton Friedman’s recommendation that they simple adopt a constant (slow) growth rate for a monetary aggregate and be done with it? This would certainly reduce the volatility of money supply and solve the wide swings between inflation and deflation (economic bubbles and busts). To answer this question, we have to look at human nature and the arrogance of power.

James Madison wrote in the Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part...”

Congress has mistakenly empowered the Fed to issue unlimited amounts of legal tender out of thin air to fine tune the economy. Angels do not make up the Federal Reserve Board; humans make mistakes. Economics is not an exact science. Trying to outsmart the invisible hand of the marketplace is like trying to second guess the daily financial decisions of 308 million Americans; notwithstanding the difficulty of being the world’s reserve currency. This is an impossible task. To give a few men this kind of power is unthinkable and dangerous. Lord Acton, who said “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” must be looking down upon us in horror.

This systemic problem of misplaced power violates the spirit of our forefathers. Where are the checks and balances? Where is the Congressional oversight? Who will guarantee Friedman’s well intentioned “constant growth” solution? The only way to reign in this power is to restore the natural limitations to monetary growth imposed by gold and silver (check) and restore the power to issue money to 308 million Americans (balance).

The Constitutional Tender Act will help stop the corrupting influence of an all powerful Fed by restoring gold and silver money and return the power to issue money to the people.

The Power to Issue Money Belongs to the People
The U.S. Constitution specifies that Congress holds the power to coin money in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5, but this does not mean Congress can create or issue money. Thomas Jefferson explained that this power is held by the people. The only power held by Congress is to weigh, measure, value, and mint gold and silver given to them by the people and then the mint should give it back to the people from whence it came and to whom it properly belongs.

Constitutional Answers
The U.S. Constitution does not authorize fiat money issued by a central bank, according to Thomas Jefferson one of the most influential of our founding fathers. “The incorporation of a bank and the powers assumed (by legislation doing so) have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They are not among the powers specially enumerated.” (Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on Bank, 1791)

It is imperative for the State Legislature to guarantee to and provide for constitutional gold and silver tender by exercising:

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution that “No state shall …make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."
The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the sovereignty and independence of this State and her citizens, inhabitants, and businesses. The absence of gold and silver coin abridges, infringes on, and interferes with the people’s rights, powers, privileges, immunities, and prerogatives as a political community.
Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Idaho that “…the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”

Emergency Preparedness Legislation
The purpose of The Idaho Constitutional Tender Act for 2011 is to prepare our citizens, businesses, and all levels of state and local government for a monetary crisis by restoring constitutional gold and silver in Idaho, as a voluntary alternative to Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs).

The Fed and its member banks would continue to operate in Idaho as a parallel system. The circulation of FRNs, commonly called USDs or legal tender, would not be inhibited; and, the IRS code, which places a capital gains tax on gold and silver coin, would not be infringed for Idaho citizens and businesses, who do not participate in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

The task force recognizes that it is the responsibility of the U.S. Congress to abolish the Fed and restore constitutional gold and silver to the people. However, the Idaho State Legislature, the Governor, and the State Attorney General must obey the U.S. Constitution, when federal laws contradict Idaho’s constitutional mandate.

Free-Market Banking
The Idaho Constitutional Tender Act is a call for action by the Governor and the State Attorney General to coordinate and defend a private, free-market, constitutional gold and silver monetary system, created by the people, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. The State Attorney General shall mount a constitutional defense of this Act to protect the state and its citizens against conflicting federal and state banking laws, legal tender laws, and punitive tax codes.

Once the legal barriers are removed, free-market forces would be encouraged to build a working infrastructure, not the government. Entrepreneurs are more experienced and knowledgeable in this field than government officials; they have the expertise to solve and implement the legislative intent of this Act.

Supply of Gold and Silver Not a Problem
There is an adequate supply of gold and silver coins in circulation, in addition to the ongoing production by the U.S. mint to meet the needs of the Idaho Constitutional Tender Act. There is no need for state coinage. State coinage would violate Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

A Boom for the Idaho Economy, Liberty, and the Rule of Law
Under this Act, companies will be attracted to Idaho to participate in the safety, stability, state legal protections, and tax benefits of a good money State. As a shining beacon of economic and individual freedom, Idaho will prosper under the Act.

Tom Dillin was the former chairman of the Idaho Sound Money Task Force and the current chairman of the Legislative District 1 Republican Central Committee.

Jefferson 's Solution to Today's Runaway Government...

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 05:10:00 +0000

Educate the People and Restore Original Principles

Many students of American History stand in awe at the careful wording of the Declaration of Independence which incorporates eight magnificent principles necessary for freedom to exist in America . What some do not fully understand is that Jefferson spent the rest of his life, exactly fifty years to the day, trying to defend those principles and holding the line against an increasingly powerful federal government which seemed to want to break out from the cherished confines and principles of the Declaration.

During the difficult years of the nation's second president, John Adams, the federal authorities assumed powers that alarmed many of the Founders who thought they had gone well beyond Constitutional limits, especially with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Act. This led Jefferson to help draft the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 which were formal protests against such federal acts and declared the states' rights to not obey such unjust laws ...

http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/current_nl.php

State Legislators Warn Against a Constitutional Convention

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 19:10:00 +0000

In this video Oklahoma State Representatives Charles Key and Dr. Mike Ritze, and State Senator Randy Brogdon warn their fellow state legislators in all 50 states against passing resolutions calling for an Article V amendments convention, commonly referred to as a constitutional convention (Con-Con). They also discuss how We the People can effectively influence public policy and address the problems we see in government today by creating an informed electorate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLADEFhJstU

Contact Your State Legislators to OPPOSE Con-Con Calls

A History of Union Murder and Sabotage

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 19:45:00 +0000

The raging union-led protests in Wisconsin have resulted in many Americans taking a closer, more critical look at labor unions and their political clout and influence in shaping policy. With the ubiquitous announcement from AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka that he is granted an audience at the White House “nearly every day,” the American people have become more skeptical of unions and the role that they play in the political process.

Spawning this renewed attention to organized labor are reports that Democratic politicians have been endorsing violence as a legitimate means of protest and political expression. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) has gone as far as telling a crowd of protesters at a union rally that they should be unafraid to “get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” and several other protesters took Capuano’s advice to heart, as former Tea Party Republican congressional candidate Marty Lamb, who ran against Democrat Rep. Jim McGovern in the 2010 elections, was reportedly brutally pummeled to the ground by union operatives at the same rally where Capuano issued his charge to violence.

However, the events that are unfolding now across the country must be placed within the context of organized labor’s broader history of violence and its historical embrace of brutal physical force as a means of legitimate political expression (which crosses the line into what is commonly defined as terrorism). The violence surrounding the various labor uprisings across America is part of a broader culture of bloodlust and savage turbulence within organized labor that has marred the movement since its inception in the late 19th century. It has clear roots in violent, anarcho-communist ideology that lacks any regard for natural rights of life, liberty, and private property — and it threatens the very foundations of our constitutional republic...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/6487-labor-unions-a-history-of-murder-and-sabotage

Senators Confused About Constitution

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 04:47:00 +0000

Senators Davis, Hill, Lodge, McGee, Malepeai (Sagness), and Stennett all voted in 2008 “to direct the Idaho Transportation Board and the Idaho Transportation Department not to implement the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005.” Senator McKenzie was MIA for that vote.

But last week these same Senators all voted in the State Affairs Committee to kill HO117, which would have prevented the implementation of ObamaCare in Idaho.

Same principle. Now they're claiming that interposition by state government to protect the liberty of the people violates the Constitution. Has the Constitution been amended since 2008? No. The proper role of government is still the protection of liberty.

So did they violate their oath of office in 2008 or in 2011? Their constituents should be informed about this dishonerable misrepresentation so they can judge.

Why do state legislators swear to uphold not only the state, but also the U.S. Constitution? Because state legislators have a role in enforcing the U.S. Constitution, just as everyone does who takes that oath. All unconstitutional power grabs are inherently null and void, unless nobody calls their bluff.

The History Lesson Washington D.C. Doesn't Want You to Know

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 05:53:00 +0000

Enemies of freedom have always used racial and religious differences to divide people while they take more power for themselves. It's no different today.

The Greatest Story Never Told: Another black history month is nearly gone, and it's another year where the government-schools and the pundits fail to teach Americans an important history lesson...the one that goes like this - "OK, for all these years, we've been telling you that states' rights and nullification was evil and all about racism. It's not and we're sorry for lying. In reality, for over a decade before the civil war, states' rights and nullification were used to resist federal slave laws and protect the rights of African Americans in those difficult times."

The Underground Railroad and the Coming of War
It was about states' rights, Northern States Rights: Students accustomed to equating states’ rights with South Carolina may be stunned to learn that it was the Wisconsin Supreme Court asserting the nullification doctrine in the mid-1850s!

The Untold History of Nullification
Resisting Slavery: Few Americans have ever heard the heroic story of how the people of Wisconson and several other states stood up to the federal government’s tyrannical, unconstitutional slave laws with the help of their elected state officials. It happened so much that South Carolina decried northern nullification when they announced their secession.

Video of Senator Pearce asking you to be at the nullification hearing!

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:15:00 +0000

Elizabeth Allen Hodge of Legislative Watch interviews Senator Monty Pearce. This video is about H0117, Idaho's ObamaCare nullification legislation that will be heard in Senate Committee on Friday, the 25th at 8 AM at the State Capitol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hh2jHAawM4

Senator Pearce is one of our courageous state legislators who is unafraid of taking on the federal government in order to protect Idaho's citizens. But he can't do it himself - he is asking YOU to be there on Friday to support this bill. Please put other plans on hold and take the time to attend the hearing - even if you don't testify, your presence there will make a huge difference. For those of you who do want to have your voice heard - you can testify in person at the hearing, or you can leave a written testimony with the clerk. Be sure your contact info is included with it.

This is it, people! This is our chance to draw the line in the sand that we have been waiting for!

We may not get another chance to fight this horrendous bill - so PLEASE MAKE THE TIME FOR THIS HEARING AND BE THERE FRIDAY MORNING, Feb, 25TH - 8 AM - STATE CAPITOL, basement, senate auditorium.

PLEASE PASS THIS FAR AND WIDE - we need to contact as many Idahoans as possible.

Violent Media Hypocrisy

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 07:37:00 +0000

If conservatives are responsible for the tragic shooting of a Congresswoman in Arizona over a month ago, then liberals are responsible for the recent outbreaks of violence directed towards certain Idaho public servants. Following this line of reasoning, it's the liberal media, teacher's union and their demonizing rhetoric that have escalated the situation to violence.

The media conveniently ignored the Arizona Shooter's Leftist Connections To Ayers, Obama during their non-stop coverage, Politicizing Ariz. Mass Shooting to Demonize Guns, Conservatives instead.

Where's their righteous indignation and universal condemnation of violence now? The more recent hostile confrontation and destruction of property in Idaho triggered little more than a news blip that was inexcusably dismissive of numerous related threats of thug tactics against Idaho public servants.

The Idaho Education Association said, “We cannot and will not let stories like this distract us... remain focused on the goal of defeating legislation that is bad for Idaho children and teachers.” And their media lapdogs obeyed.

Move along people. There's nothing to see here.

Idaho's ObamaCare Nullification Bill Is Constitutional

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 02:30:00 +0000

This excellent article quotes from the Constitution and the Federalist Papers to rebut the opinion of Idaho's AG that Idaho's healthcare nullification bill is unconstitutional.

The last election demonstrated that the American people do not want nationalized health care. One of the first things the new Congress did was repeal it. Idaho's two congressmen voted for repeal.

On Monday another federal district court judge agreed with 26 state-government plaintiffs, including Idaho, and ruled that the new national health care law is unconstitutional, and that the entire law must be voided.

The lawsuits and the fight to repeal this in Congress will likely last for years. Many have concluded that the best strategy is nullification on a state-by-state basis. With so much of our freedom and prosperity at stake it is highly advisable to pursue all three strategies.

Nullification refers to the process by which a state passes a law declaring certain federal laws to be null and void within that state based on the absence of constitutional authority for the federal government to pass such laws. Historian Thomas Woods has written an excellent history of state nullification of federal laws in his book, "Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century."

In recent years dozens of states, including Idaho, have introduced various nullification-type bills to stop Real ID, to affirm the Tenth Amendment, to reject federal firearms laws for guns manufactured, sold, and used intrastate (known as Firearms Freedom Acts), and to reject the federal mandate to buy healthcare insurance. With a couple dozen states taking a stand against various aspects of the Real ID Act, this federal program has been effectively stopped.

At least twelve states, including Idaho, have introduced bills this year to nullify the entire new health care law!

These twelve bills would nullify the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010” because they were not authorized by the Constitution of the United States. Nearly all of these state bills have a provision for criminal penalties for federal and state agents who would try to enforce the federal mandate within that state.

Idaho estimates that nullification will save state taxpayers initially more than $228,000,000!

It's appalling that some would waste our time and taxpayer dollars implementing this unconstitutional federal mandate, another bureaucracy like those that have never worked and cannot succeed and will only further destroy our freedom and prosperity.

While it appears that we are on the way to having nullification bills introduced in 20 or more states within the next year, it is necessary to get as many as possible of the already-introduced bills passed. It's hard to predict the course of events in this situation, but it would be a healthy first step toward restoration of federalism, where states are asserting their Tenth Amendment powers as parties to the compact that created the federal government in the first place.

The states should rein in our out-of-control federal government by enforcing the Constitution through nullification of unconstitutional federal mandates!

Click here to send an email message in support of nullification of the entire ObamaCare law to your state representative, state senator, governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general. We must stop ObamaCare before it destroys our healthcare system!

Nullifying good journalism

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 03:30:00 +0000

by Michael Maharrey

AP reporter John Miller provides a textbook example of sloppy, agenda driven “journalism” in a piece headlined GOP invokes 1700s doctrine in health care fight published on Jan. 26.

Miller cobbles together a report clearly reflecting his personal opinion on the subject, and while he would surely argue that the story holds completely to the facts, he links those facts together in a way that leads the reader to his forgone conclusion.

Perhaps Miller doesn’t know any better, but he also omits vital information, leaving the reader with an incomplete understanding of nullification. He can either plead ignorance, making him a lazy reporter, or he left those bits of information out on purpose, making him an agenda driven hack.

Either way, he earns low marks as a professional journalist.

Let’s look at some specifics.

Miller sets up his assumption in the language of his lede graph.

“Republican lawmakers in nearly a dozen states are reaching into the dusty annals of American history to fight President Obama’s health care overhaul.”

Note the wording – dusty annals of American history. In other words, nullification isn’t really something to take seriously. It’s old. (He re-emphasizes that point when he mentions Jefferson “philosophical guidance” 211 years ago.) Old means irrelevant and arcane. And if it’s old, irrelevant and arcane, you need not pay attention to it.

Miller frames the story with the loaded language in his opening graph and proceeds to hang it nicely inside.

He goes on to declare the notion of nullification unconstitutional. His source? “Most legal scholars…”

Presumably, Miller interviewed or at least read the opinions of most legal scholars in this country.

Or not.

Nowhere does he bother to cite any cogent opposing viewpoint. And it does exist. In fact, the logic is quite simple. He should be able to grasp it, even with all of the time spent talking to “most legal experts”. Quite simply, if Congress passes legislation reaching outside of its constitutionally prescribed delegated powers, it is not law at all, but an unconstitutional act – by definition illegal. The Constitution stands as the supreme law of the land, not the court. And unconstitutional acts cannot hold a place of supremacy over a state law.

Miller spends the next several graphs describing other radical “conservative” activities. They don’t have anything to do with nullification, but they fit the frame, so he throws them in.

I love some of the loaded language. “Anti-government angst running high.” “Tea Party crowd.” “Secession.” Miller clearly intends to paint nullification the color of extremism – right wing extremism to boot. He doesn’t come out and say it, of course. That would be non-objective. He lets the language serve as his brush.

Finally, he gets into the origins of nullification, lazily hanging the entire concept on the writing of Thomas Jefferson. I have to give him credit for basically explaining the Kentucky Resolutions correctly, all in one sentence. Well, except for the incorrect date. But why quibble? Anyway, after his cursory explanation of the principle’s origin, Miller simply sweeps the third president’s idea aside in one sentence.

“And his beliefs on nullification were nothing more than his opinions…”

I suppose I could say the same about “most legal scholars”. Or supreme court justices for that matter.

But I digress.

At this point, Miller takes the opportunity to create a little “gotcha” moment. He quotes Idaho Republican Sen. Monty Pearce saying Jefferson was at the constitutional convention.

Miller writes:

“Actually, Jefferson was far away, in France, as the framers met in 1787 in Philadelphia to replace the Articles of Confederation.”

Good one John!

But perhaps Miller should have included the fact that James Madison, considered the father of the Constitution, wrote the Virginia Resolution the same year, mirroring Jefferson’s reasoning. And that Madison laid out the fundamental principle of state resistance to overreaching federal power in Federalist 46.

But then again, who cares? That was just Madison’s opinion.

Miller moves on to assert, “Nullification has been invoked several times over the years — to no avail.”

He mentions the tariff act that South Carolina fought in the 1830s. He points out that it “nearly provoked armed conflict.”

Nearly, but it didn’t.

In fact, the feds backed down, and in a compromise, agreed to roll back the tariff over time. Sounds like at least a partial win for South Carolina. But that doesn’t fit the template.

And Miller fails to mention to modern cases of successful nullification. Numerous states refused to implement the Real ID act of 2005, rendering the act functionally void, and 15 states have defied federal law and implemented medicinal marijuana programs, without tanks rolling through the streets.

Finally, near the end of the story, Miller gets around to citing an intellectual source on nullification. But not before a little character assassination. Thomas Woods earned his undergrad degree in history from Harvard. He holds a masters and Ph.D. from Columbia University. But Miller doesn’t mention these credentials. He does mention that “as a college student in 1994, Woods helped found the League of the South, an Alabama group the Southern Poverty Law Center says has become a ‘neo-Confederate group’ seeking a second Southern secession.”

In other words, Woods is a racist and what he has to say isn’t relevant, but here it is anyway. Never mind that the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t exactly count as an unbiased source of information. And never mind that Woods no longer has any association with the League of the South. (Yes, Miller did mention this fact as an afterthought. But really, why mention the association at all? What does it have to do with the story? Oops. Sorry. Asking too many questions.)

Interestingly, Miller fails to tell us anything about the organizational memberships, paper subjects or college hi-jinks of “most legal scholars”, Idaho Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane, or David Gray Adler – all sources asserting nullification is an unconstitutional, archaic concept.

But I’m sure Miller thoroughly checked all of their backgrounds to make sure there was no ties to any progressive advocacy groups and no skeletons in their closets. No dirty laundry there for sure.

Miller makes a mockery of journalism with this story. Agree or disagree with the concept or wisdom of nullification, it has its roots in the founding philosophy of the nation and in the original understanding of the Constitution. It was invoked frequently in the first century of the Republic’s existence, by members of every political party, in the north and in the south. It stands on solid philosophical ground and has been successfully utilized in the last decade.

But Miller doesn’t bother to get into any of those complex nuances. Miller doesn’t bother to provide a balanced story explaining nullification. Miller doesn’t even bother to fact-check his work to make sure he gets something as basic as the date of the Kentucky Resolutions correct.

In short, he fails to do the basic job of a fair objective journalist.

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here.

Nullification, the Media, and Idaho: Message from Tom Woods

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 22:32:00 +0000

Tom Woods discusses media coverage of nullification and urges supporters in Idaho and around the country not to be cowed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_KuIL7icUc

http://statenullification.com/

Nullifying Federal Nullification: Time for States to Stand Tall

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:34:00 +0000

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/selwyn-duke/6073-nullifying-federal-nullification-time-for-states-to-stand-tall

Question: Are rules meant for only one side? Are civil laws meant for citizens but not the police? Are moral laws meant for laymen but not clergy?

Okay, one more: Are constitutional limitations meant for states but not the feds?

Our federal government has long violated the Constitution. But blatantly unconstitutional ObamaCare may finally be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, as lawmakers in nearly a dozen states have been talking about “nullification” — the Thomas Jefferson doctrine that recognizes states’ right to reject unconstitutional federal law.

And now it’s more than just talk. Republicans in the Idaho House introduced a nullification measure on Wednesday, and legislators in Alabama, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas, and Wyoming may follow suit.

Not surprisingly, the statists among us meet this proposal with disdain. The Associated Press is running the headline, “GOP invokes 1700s doctrine in health care fight” (funny, the Left loves 1700s Jeffersonian ideas when they happen to be cynicism about the clergy). And Idaho’s Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane criticized the effort, saying, “There is no right to pick and choose which federal laws a state will follow.”

Really? Question: Does this hold true when the federal government is picking and choosing which constitutional restrictions it will follow?

Statists like to cite the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) as stating that federal laws are “the supreme law of the land” — the AP article makes this claim. But this is untrue, the result of a selective reading. Here is the passage with the necessary context:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land…[emphasis added].”

“In pursuance thereof” is pretty important. The clause makes clear that only laws that follow the Constitution enjoy co-status with the document as supreme.

At this point the statists will say, “Okay, so we’ll go to the Supreme Court; its job is to determine what’s constitutional.” This is the judicial supremacy that enables federal supremacy. But did you ever wonder where the idea of Supreme Court as ultimate arbiter, with the right to overrule the legislative and executive branches (judicial review), comes from?

Answer: The Supreme Court itself.

(And this opinion was rendered, the Associated Press et al. should note, in what was basically a 1700s-era decision.)

In the famous (infamous?) Marbury v. Madison case in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Wow, imagine that, an entity decides it wants more power and claims that power for itself. I bet that’s never before happened in history … except with virtually every monarch, dictator, and tyrant who has ever lived.

Now, with monarchs, dictators, and tyrants people often take the claim seriously (or at least posture to that effect) because not doing so often means some kind of unpleasant death. But note that the courts have no power to enforce their whims or, as some would say, their rulings — all they can do essentially is talk. That power belongs to the executive branch. Yet its role is to enforce the law — not the rule of lawyers. So why do we take the Court’s power grab seriously?

I suppose the answer is that people want some entity that can mediate disputes, and since judges are called “judges,” people naturally look to them for judging. Yet since getting a law degree and donning a black robe don’t magically bestow one with infallible discernment, why would we show unfailing obeisance to these lawyers-cum-oligarchs? And if we are to suddenly lend an entity’s will to power credence, what about the ambitions of other small groups or individuals? Why look down on Hugo Chavez? He’s just assuming power he tells us he deserves.

Oh, if you would dispute me on this, know that I am the ultimate arbiter of reality. How can you know?

I just told you so.

Of course, you don’t have to believe me. Thomas Jefferson, who was president when the Marbury v. Madison decision came down, later warned that if the judiciary is to be considered the last word on constitutional matters, “then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se.”

This means an act of suicide.

Jefferson continued:

For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation…. The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

And he subsequently stated quite bluntly, “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy [emphasis added].”

And this is precisely what we now have.

In all fairness to Chief Justice John Marshall, he would likely be appalled at how today’s Court plays fast and loose with the Constitution. After all, he wrote in his decision, “To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?”

Yet today’s government passes these limits at will. We have politicians who scoff at the Constitution, such as when Nancy Pelosi dismissed a constitutional question with, “Are you serious?! Are you serious?!” And we have justices who rubber-stamp such constitutional trespass with living-document rationalizations, such as when Ruth Bader-Ginsburg said that our Constitution mustn’t be “stuck in time.” But it isn’t; it’s stuck in law, supreme law that can only lawfully be changed through the Amendment Process.

The federal government has a nice racket going: It legislates more and more power for itself and has its own likeminded judiciary approve it with a wink and a nod. It has given us a living document and a dying republic.

But we don’t have to commit suicide by judge. If the feds can nullify the Constitution, the states can and must nullify their nullification. And when the Court “steps in,” we should tell it to step off, as we paraphrase President Andrew Jackson and say, “The justices have made their decision. Now let them enforce it.”

Idaho Among States Moving to Nullify ObamaCare

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:30:00 +0000

The Idaho legislature is expected to take up legislation on Wednesday, January 26, aimed at nullifying Obamacare within the Gem State. The draft bill by state Senator Monty Pearce declares the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (which, combined, comprise what is commonly called "Obamacare") to be "not authorized by the Constitution of the United States," and therefore, "are null, void and of no effect regarding any Idaho citizen residing within the borders of the state of Idaho."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6037-states-move-to-nullify-obamacare

6 states now on board

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:39:00 +0000

Joining Texas - Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon and Wyoming - to consider Health Care Nullification. This state-law would nullify not just mandates, but the entire national health care bill - every word of it.

Read about it here.

Welcome to Chidaho

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:16:00 +0000

The Chinese Communist Party governs the People’s Republic of China and owns the People’s Liberation Army. Their national companies enjoy a huge and profitable export business.

With the Federal Reserve inflating the dollar like never before, the Chinese and others are abandoning the dollar. How do you get rid of loads of increasingly worthless cash? Buy hard assets.

A concept popular in China today is government-owned companies buying up assets in more than 130 countries. After Gov. Otter went groveling before Chinese Communists last year, they are working on developing industry, retail centers and homes in Idaho.

Bringing Chinese dollars into Idaho will cause further price inflation at home, making dollars more worthless and leaving the Chinese Communist Party in possession of Idaho hard assets. But don't feel too bad, they're also eying Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

In light of China’s Gambit for World Dominance, how do you feel about all of this?

Constitutional Amendment Could Neutralize State Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:04:00 +0000

That's right. Another constitutional amendment “solution” is being proposed to “empower states.” It would only take TWO THIRDS of the states to repeal federal laws. The whole discussion implies that states don't already have the ability to repeal federal laws through simple nullification without having to seek the consent of 33 other states! And of course it's being sold as the "Tea Party" thing to do. Read more: http://thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5585:lawmakers-consider-qrepeal-amendmentq&catid=42:constitution&Itemid=111

This new article, "States Should Enforce, Not Revise, the Constitution!" by Larry Greenley, is useful for educating state legislators and other citizens about the need for nullifying unconstitutional federal laws and for stopping states from issuing new calls for a constitutional convention.

The thesis of this article: "The states should rein in our out-of-control federal government by enforcing the Constitution through nullification of unconstitutional federal laws, rather than by revising the Constitution through an inherently risky constitutional convention process."

This article is now available as a free article to read online and as a free PDF (just as it appeared in the December 6, 2010 issue of The New American).

Further information about action projects to stop ObamaCare and to stop any new calls for a constitutional convention is available at:

The Day the Dollar Died

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:42:00 +0000

The first 12 hours of a U.S. dollar collapse!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N8gJSMoOJc

Idahoans for Liberty releases Phil Hart YouTube Video

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:16:00 +0000

The activist group, which is located in in Southwest Idaho, has been strongly supporting the embattled North Idaho lawmaker both before and after his troubles became front-page news.

The link to the video is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/Idahoans4Liberty

The group has released a YouTube video entitled: "ADA COUNTY REPUBLICANS SUPPORT PHIL HART -- A message to voters in District 3." The video features both prominent and grassroots Republicans in Ada County who support Phil Hart's re-election and battles with the IRS. Among those appearing are Rod Beck, former Senate Majority Leader and current Region 4 Chair of the State Republican Party, Dennis Mansfield, longtime Christian Conservative activist, Redgie Bigham, President of the Treasure Valley Pachyderms, Jim Thomas, 2nd Vice Chair of the Ada County Republican Party, and Ryan Davidson, 3rd Vice Chair of the Ada County Republican Party.

"The goal of the video is to show voters in North Idaho that Rep. Hart is loved and supported throughout the state," said Ryan Davidson, spokesman for ID4L. "He fought and continues to fight a principled battle against the IRS and the State Tax Commission. His study of the law and the history of the 16th Amendment is nothing short of remarkable. Had the US Supreme Court chose to hear Rep. Hart's case, they very well could have determined that the original intent of the 16th Amendment was something very different than what is thought today. The Supreme Court recently determined in the famous Heller case that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was something quite different than what legal scholars and federal court judges had been preaching. The Hellar case has led to the repeal of various gun laws. Rep. Hart's case could have led to the repeal of the income tax, had the Supreme Court summoned the courage to tackle the issue."

Rep. Hart's supporters in Ada County also take serious issue with the news stories referring to him as a "timber thief." Rep. Hart studied both state and federal forest law, and spoke with loggers (who he received affidavits from) before concluding that the law on the books at the time (confusing as it was) allowed a private citizen to harvest trees for their personal, non-commercial use. The Sheriff at the time agreed with Phil's reading of the law, but the Attorney General's office did not. A difference of opinion on a poorly written law (which was changed after Rep. Hart's case) does not make one a "timber thief" by any stretch of the imagination.

"We hope that voters in North Idaho, whose opinion of Rep. Hart may have been shaped by negative news coverage, take a second look," said Davidson. "Underneath the terrible headlines they may find a true statesman. It's what we've found."

http://www.youtube.com/user/Idahoans4Liberty

Term Limits Temptation: Creating the Pretext for a Con-Con

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:06:00 +0000

Written by George Detweiler

Throw the bums out! The idea is appealing to Americans who see their elected officials becoming less and less in touch with conservative government. The idea is also not new. Concerning term limits, which were considered by the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 72: "Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection."

The quick-fix nature of term limitation is superficially appealing not only because of the perceived speed with which it appears to remove an offending official, but also because it does not require much thought, research, or analysis on the part of the voters. By throwing everyone out of office after a fixed number of terms, we rid ourselves of the task of deciding who is doing a good job and who is not. The finest and the worst are discarded by the calendar.

What those who are attracted by the concept of term limits generally fail to understand is that the promoters seek, not specific term limits, but general term limits, which would restrict the voter franchise and emasculate the power of the ballot. The goal -- ridding our government of the bad while keeping the top performers -- would be sacrificed on the altar of expediency.

First Proposal
While the term limits concept was considered during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was rejected by the delegates, who instead provided for short terms of office -- two years for the House of Representatives, four years for the Presidency, and six years for the Senate. James Madison, who opposed term limits at the Constitutional Convention, recorded in his notes the words of a fellow delegate, Roger Sherman: "Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the Government, by preserving that good behavior, because it ensures their re-election." It is difficult to challenge Sherman’s logic: If a politician were not eligible to run for re-election because of term limits, what incentive would he have to please the voters? The answer, of course, is that he would have little such incentive, and he would be even more prone than before to fall prey to the special interests in Washington.

For proof of this one need look no further than the special lame-duck session of Congress that was held after the November 1994 elections for the explicit purpose of passing the unpopular General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) treaty. It mattered little that most Americans were strongly opposed to this treaty; the elections had already been held and the congressmen who were rejected by the voters did not have to worry about facing another re-election anyway. What did matter was the intensity of the GATT lobbying effort. Is it any wonder that the position of the new world order architects triumphed over that of grassroots Americans?

Fortunately, the Founding Fathers recognized that frequent elections are the best way to keep politicians responsive, and they made the elections most frequent for that part of the federal government which is closest to the people -- the House of Representatives. They fully understood that the greatest restraint on any public official is the realization that he must face the voters for re-election, and be judged on his performance in office.

Because of the wisdom of the Founders, America has benefited from the services of many great lawmakers whose long and fruitful careers would have been cut short had term limits been in effect. Those lawmakers include John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Sam Houston, James Madison, and Daniel Webster.

Few lawmakers have as much political clout as the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, yet Speaker Tom Foley (D-WA) was defeated in 1994 by a political novice. Similarly, great power rests with the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, yet Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) was defeated in 1994 by a political novice. No term limits law was necessary in these cases. Foley’s and Rostenkowski’s constituents limited their terms by way of the ballot box.

A changing of the guard began with the election of 124 freshmen members of Congress in 1992 -- without mandated term limits. It continued in 1994 with a great power shift in Congress and statehouses throughout the land -- without mandated term limits. In January 1995, 87 freshmen representatives and 11 freshmen senators took their oaths of office, demonstrating the constitutional authority of voters to limit the terms of their specific congressmen. At this writing 47 incumbent representatives and 14 incumbent senators have already announced that they will retire rather than seek election in November -- all changes wrought without mandated term limits.

The flaw of mandated term limits is demonstrated by comparing the Congresses elected in these two years. The turnover in 1992 took place simultaneously with the election of a new President. That new Congress turned out to continue business as usual in spending, social programs, and concentration of power at the federal level. The subsequent voter response in 1994 was a public reaction to that continuation of the same old game. Term limits, whether specific and voter imposed or general and imposed by law, never guarantee an improvement in government service. Only a well-informed and thoughtful electorate can do that.

Education Is the Key
For this reason, Americans sincerely concerned about poor representation in Washington should work to increase public understanding, not to limit the voter franchise. Until the understanding is created, the new faces will not provide any better representation than the old ones.

But the ability to create understanding is limited when voting records no longer matter. If an incumbent with a record of performance were denied the option of running for reelection, voters would be forced to choose a candidate without a congressional voting record. The entire success of a voter-education program such as Tax Reform IMmediately (TRIM) depends upon a congressman’s ability to seek re-election. By making a congressman’s voting record widely available through the mass circulation of its voter-education bulletins, TRIM helps voters know who the big spenders are. More than a few congressmen have become more fiscally conservative as a result of TRIM exposure of their big- spending voting records. But these congressmen would have had little incentive to change had they known that they would not be facing the voters in a reelection bid.

Another result of mandated term limits would be increased dependence by congressmen on unelected staffers and the entrenched beltway bureaucracy. Were experienced elected officials tossed out by term limits, their inexperienced replacements would have to spend time learning the ropes. Until the newcomers were up to speed in job performance, the career civil servants, who never have to face the voters, would take up the slack and exercise greater control. By the time the novices gained sufficient experience, they would be out of office because of the term limits law.

Power and Money
Government paychecks and power are terribly addictive. Term limits would create a pool of ex-congressmen and ex-senators desperate to stay on the federal payroll rather than find a real job in the private sector. The executive branch -- that vast network of departments, bureaus, agencies, advisers, and regulatory commissions -- would become the employer of choice for those exiting Congress.

The President, fully realizing the attraction Administration jobs would offer to congressmen forced to retire due to term limits, would undoubtedly use this as leverage to convince these congressmen to vote for Administration policies. And why wouldn’t many of these congressmen accept the bait, when the wishes of their constituents no longer mattered? Consequently, term limits would increase the influence of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch, further disrupting the delicate system of checks and balances that the Founding Fathers so carefully crafted into the Constitution.

As for the "career politicians" whom term limits would supposedly eject from the ranks of government, many of them would remain in Washington, only now they would be in the executive branch, where they would be safely insulated from the direct wrath of the voters.

Meanwhile, term limits on the state and local levels would also create a pool of out-of work office holders casting lustful eyes at a new job in Congress. Rather than rid the nation of "career politicians," mandated term limits would merely create circulating pools of public employees making the rounds from the statehouses, to Congress, to the executive branch in search of higher paychecks and greater power.

Slumbering Citizens
The mere passage of a term limits law would have a soporific effect on the public. Content in the misconception that once limits are imposed only competent, honorable people could hold office, the American citizenry would assume that their vigilance is no longer needed; they would thus be prone to ignore the actions of their elected officials and go into a deep slumber. Voters would elect a string of mandated short termers who would go about their business largely unwatched.

After the unprecedented three-term Franklin Roosevelt Administration, Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, limiting a President to two full terms. The Amendment was ratified by the states and became a part of the Constitution on February 27, 1951. Evaluation of the Presidents who have followed ratification of that amendment reveals that they have been no more competent, no more honorable, and -- most important -- no more faithful to the Constitution than Presidents who preceded the 22nd Amendment. Mandated term limits have been a resounding failure at the presidential level, and there is no reason to expect greater success at the congressional level. There is simply no substitute for well-informed voters who see through hollow promises and who demand that elected representatives adhere strictly to the Constitution.

Are the leading promoters of term limits sincerely seeking better government, or do they have another agenda? A complete answer to this question requires a brief detour. Article V of the U.S. Constitution establishes two distinct methods of amending that venerable document. By one method, Congress proposes amendments and sends them to the states to be ratified, either by the legislatures of each state or by a special convention called in each state to consider the amendment. Every existing amendment to the Constitution has been made using this method.

By the other method, the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (34) must apply to Congress to call a convention of delegates to propose amendments, after which Congress is required to call a convention. This method of amendment has never been used and how it would work in practice remains a mystery.

First Attempt
In 1975 the North Dakota legislature became the first state to apply to Congress for a constitutional convention (con-con) under Article V for the expressed and limited purpose of proposing a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. Other states followed North Dakota’s lead, not knowing that a state which applies for a con- con has no authority to limit the convention.

Leading the charge for a balanced budget convention was James Dale Davidson of the National Taxpayers Union. His fund-raising appeals pleaded for money to support his movement for a con-con for the limited purpose of proposing a balanced budget amendment. At one point 32 of the necessary 34 states had applied for a balanced budget convention. Alerted to the danger, the John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, and other patriotic organizations and individuals began to testify against the con-con calls at legislative hearings, proclaiming the view of the vast majority of the American public, liberal or conservative: "Hands off the Constitution!" Regardless of the politics of the citizenry, good Americans don’t want anyone tampering with that document.

In 1983 Missouri became the last state to apply for a balanced budget con-con; the effort had lost its momentum and was dead in the water, despite later periodic efforts by backers to get other state legislatures to apply for a balanced budget convention. Armed with the fact that a con-con cannot be limited to one subject, three states which had initially applied for a convention withdrew their applications. The balanced budget con-con advocates refused to recognize the withdrawals, continuing steadfastly to maintain that a convention could be limited to considering amendments on one subject. Judges, including former Chief Justice Warren Burger, and many legal scholars disagreed.

Now enters the term limits movement. Like the pony express rider who leaves the tired mount behind for a fresh one, the con-con advocates have changed from championing a balanced federal budget to championing congressional term limits. Nonetheless, their ultimate goal remains the same: a constitutional convention that will execute major changes in the structure of the federal government and, perhaps, in the structure of the state governments. In the middle of this latest effort has been the U.S. Term Limits Foundation.

Careful ground work has been done to mold and manipulate public opinion into the belief that the only way to dislodge entrenched politicians is with mandated term limits. U.S. Term Limits distributes a slick video replete with examples of high congressional salaries, retirement benefits, and perquisites as reasons to hold a term limits con-con.

The target of the video is the under-informed citizen who is concerned about government waste, corruption, and special interests. The video proclaims that a strong majority of the American people wants term limits, but it is careful to avoid specifying the kinds of alterations to the Constitution which a con-con could produce.

Aggressive Effort
Initiative petition drives conducted from 1990-94 put term limits measures on the ballots in 23 states. Candidates for office were publicly asked for their positions on term limits, making it a campaign issue in several elections. The ballot measures were written so as to include state, local, and -- in some states -- congressional offices, in direct conflict with Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Those sections provide an exclusive list of qualifications for office in the House and Senate.

An uninformed public bought the term limits line; the measures passed in each state amid a general public inclination for cleaning house. Term limits thereby became law in each of these states. The next step was a court challenge to the new state laws. It came in Arkansas, which had amended its constitution to impose term limits on the senators and representatives the state sends to Washington. A class-action suit was filed on behalf of the Arkansas League of Women Voters and others contending that state-imposed term limits violate the Constitution. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), the Supreme Court agreed, holding that states have no power to change or add to the qualifications for office set forth in the Constitution.

Term limits advocates claimed that the courts had struck down the will of the people by blocking the implementation of state laws imposing congressional term limits. In berating the Supreme Court for its decision, U.S. Term Limits Executive Director Paul Jacob complained: "It’s not fair that the country’s most powerful judges (congressionally approved for life) are paying back their friends in Congress for giving them the only job that offers lifelong job security!" In point of fact, the Supreme Court simply applied the language of the Constitution and found state-imposed congressional term limits to be unconstitutional.

The stage was thus set for the campaign for a constitutional convention. Since Congress would never propose an amendment to the Constitution to limit itself out of office, a concon was the only way to get such an amendment.

Doubts about the goals of the term limits movers and shakers are erased when one examines the language which appears in a new set of initiative measures which U.S. Term Limits hopes to see passed this November in 17 of the 23 states that had adopted term limit measures by 1994. Unlike the balanced budget con-con applications, the new term limits measures are not restricted to a single subject. Instead, they seek to require the state legislatures to apply to Congress for a convention to propose amendments (plural) to the Constitution. In essence, the 1996 ballot measures are asking for a general convention, one authorized to propose changes in the basic fabric and framework of the entire American system of federal government.

Typical of the language in the initiative measures are sections requiring a notation on the ballot beside the names of candidates who have declined to support term limits legislation. The Idaho version reads: "Disregarded Voters’ Instruction on Term Limits." Idaho Attorney General Alan G. Lance has issued an advisory opinion that the initiative measure being prepared for circulation in that state is unconstitutional. In his opinion letter on the proposed ballot language, Lance reasoned:

[B]y placing unfavorable comments next to a candidate’s name on the ballot, the state is effectively signaling to the electorate that this candidate is unworthy of their vote in contrast to other candidates. Thus, the state is decreasing the chance that such individuals would be elected based upon their stand on a political issue and, thus, decreasing the value of the votes of his or her supporters.... Requiring the State of Idaho to print any of the above language on a ballot raises problems under several constitutional provisions, including the freedom of speech, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions, and the right of suffrage provision contained in the Idaho Constitution.

Deceptive Language
In regard to how these initiatives will be presented on the ballots themselves, deception will be the rule. The Idaho version includes a short title making no mention of a constitutional convention, although a con-con is mentioned in the long title. The long title does not, however, clarify that the initiative measure seeks to have the legislature apply for a general, unlimited convention.

In the text of the initiative petition, the con-con language does not appear until the middle of a document of four legal pages in length. Thus, the bottom-line purpose of the initiative takes considerable time and reading to discover. That purpose is camouflaged by the dominance of the term limits language; the actual language seeking an unlimited con-con is minimal. Consequently, the voter who is approached in a parking lot and asked to sign the petition will have little time or opportunity to discover, and no reason to suspect, that the measure is designed to seek a general constitutional convention that could draft not only a term limits amendment, but a new constitution.

Only state legislatures can apply to Congress for a con-con. The latest initiative measures, therefore, cannot produce a con-con application. To circumvent this hurdle, the term limit promoters have placed language in their initiatives directing the legislatures to apply to Congress for a convention. Regarding this approach, the Idaho Attorney General Lance stated that "the government is speaking in support of a constitutional term limits amendment, a political issue, best left to the political campaign rhetoric between candidates and their supporters. Not only is the government speaking in support of one side of a controversial issue, it is lending its voice at the most crucial point in time in the relationship between voters and candidates." Lance opined that "while government is free to add its voice to the marketplace of ideas, it is highly doubtful the state can use its power to seek to manipulate election results by slanting what appears on the ballot. This initiative has the effect of praising one candidate and penalizing another based solely upon the political beliefs expressed by such individuals. Based upon the law cited above, such conduct on the part of the state is improper."

A pamphlet published by U.S. Term Limits assures, "A convention cannot enact anything, it can only propose an amendment or amendments. Nothing can become part of the Constitution without being ratified by both Houses of thirty-eight state legislatures."This statement is patently false. Article V of the Constitution states that proposed amendments shall become effective "when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...."

For example, the 21st Amendment repealing prohibition was, in fact, ratified by special state conventions, not by the state legislatures. Congress chose that mode of ratification because it knew that there was not sufficient support among the state legislatures to assure ratification. But Congress did not stop there. It also established guidelines for the delegate- selection process that helped ensure that mostly pro-Amendment delegates would be selected and that the 21st Amendment would become part of the Constitution. In this fashion, pro-prohibition Utah became the final state to ratify the 21st Amendment, even though the state legislature was staunchly opposed to it.

Contrary to the claim of U.S. Term Limits, once a state legislature has applied to Congress for a con-con, there is no guarantee that that legislature will ever have the opportunity to pass judgment on the product of any convention which is called.

The U.S. Term Limits video proposes that the move to seek a con-con can be used to pressure Congress to propose a term limits amendment. There is extreme danger in doing so. If the 34th state applied for a con-con, Congress would be duty bound under Article V to call one even if Congress has already proposed a term limits amendment. The danger is exacerbated by the fact that U.S. Term Limits is seeking a general convention, not one purportedly limited to proposing a term limits amendment.

The true goal is a con-con for any purpose, which instantly becomes a con-con for every purpose. Once a con-con begins, it can propose amendments upon any subject it chooses, and whatever limitations the state legislatures thought they had imposed on it may be ignored. Delegates to a convention would never face the voters to account for their actions; they would be accountable to no one. A con-con could make drastic changes in the Constitution involving radical redesign of the federal government. It could propose a truly national government with a parliament along the lines of Great Britain and European countries. It could propose whatever it likes. It could even alter the methods of ratification for the changes which it produces.

Changing the Rules
The convention which met in Philadelphia in 1787 had convened for the limited purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation, the constitution under which our nation then operated. But from the start, the delegates ignored the limitations on their authority and began to write the Constitution under which we now live. They knew that the new Constitution would not receive unanimous support from the states as required by Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation. To solve this dilemma the convention simply changed the rules, creating its own method of ratification, found in Article VII of our present-day Constitution. Article VII, which specified that the Constitution would become effective upon ratification of only nine of the 13 states, made possible the birth of the Constitution.

Since the method of ratification can be changed, what would prevent it from being eliminated? It happened once; what assurance do we have that it could not happen again? A modern-day convention could conceivably produce a new constitution that would take effect upon adjournment of the convention! Recall our earlier observation that a convention-born amendment has never been proposed and that the process is shrouded in mystery. The final outcome of a con-con and its effects on the federal system and limited federal authority cannot be predicted. What can be predicted, however, is that power seekers will always find the Constitution an obstacle to their ambitions, and will always attempt to circumvent it and -- if possible -- destroy it. In an age when relatively few Americans understand the basic principles upon which their government was founded, a modern-day con-con would provide power-seekers with an opportunity to tailor the Constitution to their own liking.

In Idaho the con-con movement which carries the term limits banner bears the name Citizens for Federal Term Limits. It is headed by Donna Weaver, who told THE NEW AMERICAN that the state organization is affiliated with U.S. Term Limits. Circulation of petitions to get the term limits initiative on the state ballot has already begun. All petition circulators will be Idaho residents and will be paid for the signatures they collect.

Weaver stated that the language of the initiative measure was drafted using text supplied by U.S. Term Limits; it is the same language used in the other states where term limits initiative petitions are being circulated. Weaver also noted that the wording with reference to a constitutional convention was lifted from Article V with no changes in order to minimize the chance for error in case the validity of the initiative is challenged, hence the application for amendments in the plural rather than a single amendment. She volunteered that a convention could propose amendments on topics other than term limits, although she regarded the Idaho application language as seeking a limited rather than a general convention.

Top-Down Agenda
We have no reason to doubt Weaver’s sincerity. Yet while Weaver cautions, "I’m not saying that I think that we ought to have a convention on this issue or any issue," the top national leadership of U.S. Terms Limits is fully aware that the real purpose of the term limits movement is a general, unlimited con-con. It is unlikely that state coordinators such as Weaver are in on the game plan.

Weaver views the term limits movement as a means by which the American people can retake control of their government. This is in sharp contrast to the reality of the control which emanates from the national organization to those in the states. Note, for instance, that the language for the state initiative measures is supplied by the national headquarters in Washington, DC. Given the distaste which the American people have for tampering with the Constitution, it is doubtful that people in middle leadership and below would support the movement if they knew the real agenda.

The top players in the term limits movement are the same people who have pressed for a balanced budget con-con. James Dale Davidson’s National Taxpayers Union has used the same propaganda to solicit funds for a term limits con-con as it used earlier to solicit funds for a balanced budget con-con. The graphics are the same. The format is the same. The wording is even the same, except that the words "term limits" have replaced the words "balanced budget." Former Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburgh and former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm have not only formed Citizens for a Balanced Budget Amendment, but have joined with the National Taxpayers Union, thus aligning themselves with the term limits camp.

Interestingly, Thornburgh is also a member of the Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS). Other CCS members include Lloyd Cutler, chairman and former legal counsel to Jimmy Carter; former Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon; former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara; and Senator Nancy Kassebaum (R-KS). Thornburgh’s alliance with the CCS and his involvement with both the balanced budget and term limits con-con movements establish an important link between the radical changes to the Constitution sought by the CCS and both con-con efforts. Funding for the CCS comes from the Dillon Fund, American Express, and the Ford, Hewlett, and Rockefeller Foundations.

Proposed "Reforms"
The announced purpose of the CCS is to consider constitutional changes such as:

Requiring voters to vote for President, Vice President, senators, and congressmen as a unit, under the banner of one or the other political party, thereby eliminating splitting the ballot and choosing people for these offices from different parties.

Permitting the President to dissolve Congress and call for new elections.
Permitting Congress to vote "no confidence" in the President and force new elections.
Allowing the President to propose certain types of legislation that could be adopted by popular referendum instead of by Congress.
Allowing the Senate to ratify treaties by a smaller majority vote instead of the twothirds majority vote that is now required.
Placing congressional leaders in the President’s cabinet, thereby further eroding the separation of powers between the legislative and the executive branches.

Taken as a whole, the CCS "reforms" would have the result of gutting the Constitution. They would destroy the separation of powers built into our system, give the political party in power control over both the executive and legislative branches, and, in general, allow more power to be transferred to the Washington leviathan.

Don’t be surprised if the CCS and other would-be Constitution "reformers" attempt to use a modern-day con-con to implement their radical agenda. Back in 1985, CCS co-chair Lloyd Cutler wrote that "if the pending call for a constitutional convention to propose a ’balance the budget’ amendment is joined by the two additional states needed to provide the triggering two-thirds ... our committee may be ready with some better ideas." The more recent call for a con-con to limit congressional terms could be used just as easily.

The safest way to preserve the integrity of the Constitution is to defeat all efforts to have state legislatures apply for any convention, regardless of how appealing the sales pitch or the expressed "purpose" may appear. This would be true even if the pretext for a con-con were a worthwhile proposal. As we have seen, limiting congressional terms by making incumbents ineligible to run for re-election would not result in better government, and would in fact open the door to great harm to our Republic.

Mr. Detweiler, a former Assistant Attorney General for the state of Idaho, is a practicing attorney in Twin Falls, Idaho.

[Click here to send an email to your state legislators in opposition to a constitutional convention. Today in 2010 many newly-awakened activists are calling for term limits and a constitutional convention (often referred to as a con-con). The John Birch Society has been leading the fight against these tempting "cure-alls" for several decades now. This article, "Term Limits Temptation: Creating the Pretext for a Con-Con" by George Detweiler is a valuable summary of the arguments against term limits and a constitutional convention, and will be useful for constitutionalists as they fend off this new round of enthusiasm for term limits and a con-con. It was originally published in the June 10, 1996 issue of The New American magazine.]

James Madison: No Term Limits Champion

The record of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 clearly shows that James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, Roger Sherman, and most all of the Founders were firmly opposed to terms limitation, or what they called "ineligibility for reappointment." There can be no question about the correctness of the Convention record concerning Madison’s view because Madison himself, under the direction of Convention chair George Washington, kept the record.

But the present promoters of term limits have not paid much attention to Madison’s notes on the Convention. Neither have they searched The Federalist Papers to learn the intent of the framers on the subject of term limits. In a vain effort to co-opt Madison, term limit advocates have resorted to a frail thread in the fabric of his pre-convention plan. As it happens, James Madison brought to the Convention of 1787 an outline for the new government known as the Virginia Plan, which left intact the custom of single one-year terms then mandated for delegates serving in Congress under the Articles of Confederation.

On this basis, a graduate student at the College of William and Mary has written an essay, published by U.S. Term Limits, under the title: James Madison: Term Limit Radical, The Father of the Constitution's Solution to Congressional Careerism. Both the title of the article and its assertions are ludicrous.

Under Madison’s Virginia Plan all members of Congress would have been elected by the state legislatures. But when the Convention moved to have members of the House elected directly by the people, Madison voted for that principle, revised his plan accordingly, and rejected term limits. He later explained in The Federalist, No. 53:

No argument can be drawn on this subject from the case of the delegates to the existing Congress. They are elected annually, it is true; but their re-election is considered by the legislative assemblies almost as a matter of course. The election of the representatives of the people would not be governed by the same principle.

Madison then cited the advantage of long-standing membership in a Congress elected directly by the people and explained the disadvantage of a great number of new members in Congress:

A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they will be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.

Contrary to U.S. Term Limits, Madison and most of the delegates to the Convention wanted good men frequently re-elected to preserve the permanency of government and to retain the advantage of their years of experience. At no time did Madison argue for term limits or vote in favor of ineligibility due to tenure. Madison, Hamilton, and Washington were in fact prime examples of "careerism," having served a combined total of 88 years in public service.

The ideas promulgated by U.S. Term Limits are a direct reversal of the facts of recorded history and are deeply offensive to the intelligence of all who understand the wisdom and exceptional character of our nation’s founders.

The Founding Fathers on Term Limits

Alexander Hamilton: "Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more illfounded upon close inspection [than term limits].... One ill effect of the exclusion would be a diminution of the inducements to good behavior. There are few men who would not feel much less zeal in the discharge of a duty when they were conscious that the advantage of the station with which it was connected must be relinquished at a determinate period, than when they were permitted to entertain a hope of obtaining, by meriting, a continuance of them." (The Federalist, #72)

John Adams: "There is no right clearer, and few of more importance, than that the people should be at liberty to choose the ablest and best men, and that men of the greatest merit should exercise the most important employments; yet, upon the present [term limits] supposition, the people voluntarily resign this right, and shackle their own choice.... [T]hey must all return to private life, and be succeeded by another set, who have less wisdom, wealth, virtue, and less of the confidence and affection of the people." (A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America)

James Madison: "No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgement a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate. A part of this knowledge may be acquired by means of information which lie within the compass of men in private as well as public stations. Another part can only be attained, or at least thoroughly attained, by actual experience in the station which requires the use of it.... A few of the members [of Congress], as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them." (The Federalist, #53)

Samuel Adams: "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." (1780)

Roger Sherman: "Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the Government, by preserving that good behavior, because it ensures their re-election.... In Connecticut we have existed 132 years under an annual government; and as long as a man behaves himself well, he is never turned out of office." (From Madison’s notes at the Constitutional Convention, 1787)

Gouverneur Morris: "The ineligibility proposed by the [terms limitation] clause as it stood tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a re-appointment. It was saying to him, ’make hay while the sun shines.’" (From Madison’s notes at the Constitutional Convention, 1787)

Samuel Adams: "Much safer is it, and much more does it tend to promote the welfare and happiness of society to fill up the offices of Government after the mode prescribed in the American Constitution, by frequent elections of the people. They may indeed be deceived in their choice; they sometimes are; but the evil is not incurable; the remedy is always near; they will feel their mistakes, and correct them." (1790)

Congressman: "The Federal Government can do most anything in this country."

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 03:10:00 +0000

August recess... town hall meeting... Pete Stark's latest controversial statement about the Federal Government having very few Constitutional limits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE

How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:10:00 +0000

Nullification is an indispensable book about what could become the most effective means of stopping an out-of-control federal government. Nullification is simply an act by states (and occasionally individuals) to resist unconstitutional federal laws.

Action Item:

Ask your local bookstore to stock Nullification and then get a copy for you and for one of your legislative candidates.
Get some liberty-loving friends to do the same thing so bookstores display it and all of your legislative candidates get a copy.

Citizens across the country are fed up with the politicians in Washington telling us how to live our lives—and then sticking us with the bill. But what can we do? Actually, we can just say “no.” As New York Times bestselling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr., explains, nullification allows states to reject unconstitutional federal laws. For many tea partiers nationwide, nullification is rapidly becoming the only way to stop an over-reaching government drunk on power. From privacy to national healthcare, Woods shows how this growing and popular movement is sweeping across America and empowering states to take action against Obama’s socialist policies and big-government agenda.

Unconstitutional laws are pouring out of Washington...

...but we can stop them.

Just ask Thomas Jefferson. There is a “rightful remedy” to federal power grabs—it’s called Nullification.

In Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, historian and New York Times bestselling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. explains not only why nullification is the constitutional tool the Founders envisioned, but how it works—and has already been employed in cases ranging from upholding the First Amendment to knocking down slave laws before the Civil War. In Nullification, Woods shows:

How the states were meant to be checks against federal tyranny—and how a growing roster of governors and state attorneys general are recognizing they need to become that again
Why the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reinforces the rights of states to nullify unconstitutional laws
Why it was left to the states to uphold the simple principle that an unconstitutional law is no law at all
Why, without nullification, ordinary Americans will continue to suffer the oppression of unjust, unconstitutional laws
PLUS thorough documentation of how the Founding Fathers believed nullification could be applied

Nullification is not just a book—it could become a movement to restore the proper constitutional limits of the federal government. Powerful, provocative, and timely, Nullification is sure to stir debate and become a constitutional handbook for all liberty-loving Americans.

Stewards of our State

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:07:00 +0000

Idaho State Representative Dennis Lake, chairman of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, says, “2011 is all about revenue enhancement.” How do you like the new codewords for raising taxes?

The Sovereign Idaho Coalition had an extremely successful 2010 legislative session. We made state sovereignty issues the prevailing theme of the session.

2011 is not an election year. 2009 wasn't an election year either and you may remember some of the irresponsible attempts to raise taxes that year. Governor Otter says that in 2011, "The legislature is going to have an opportunity to look for additional revenues."

2011 will be a battle no matter how the November elections go. Supporters of Big Government are already planning their media talking points and marshaling their forces to reverse the responsible reductions in the size of government that were accomplished in 2010.

About this time last year we began forming our strategies that resulted in our 2010 successes. Our formula was effective - partially because we enjoyed the element of surprise - but you can be sure we will not go unchallenged in 2011.

Now is the time:

To build on our momentum and return government to its limited, low-cost role.
For our state government to protect Idahoans from federal usurpations by nullifying unconstitutional federal laws.
To promote free enterprise and defend sensible government cutbacks.

In 2010 we passed the Health Freedom Act, the Firearms Freedom Act, and the Public School Financial Transparency Act. Plus, we made significant progress on sound money for Idaho.

In 2011 we would like to pass a Federal Health Care Nullification Act, a Constitutional Tender Act, a Constitutional Carry Act, and a Fully Informed Jury Act. Plus, we want to equip you to influence your legislators and prevent any tax increases in Idaho.

Every political season is like a new chess game - always mix up strategies or your opponents will gain a predictable advantage.

This year, instead of Converging on the Capitol in the middle of winter to wander around trying to find our representatives and then compete against lobbyists for their ear, we're going to meet with our representatives in their home districts when and where we have a lot more influence on them.

When's the best time to have a group sit down with your legislators? They head to Boise near the beginning of January. November and December are not good months because of the holidays. The months leading up to the November 2 election are perfect (Aug, Sept, Oct). They will be looking for opportunities to meet with their constituents and we will deliver!

How about a Tea Party with your Legislators. They're not invited to give a stump speech. They're invited to listen to your concerns and be reminded that they work for the people, not for the special interests, lobbyists and bureaucrats. Set a time and place, line up speakers for the various issues, invite all the candidates and get as many patriots there as possible.

Sovereign Idaho Coalition Chairman, Pete Ketcham, is ready to fly/travel around the state and deliver presentations about nullification at your event if you'd like a lead spokesman to address the legislators. He can be contacted at 208-983-7552.

John Birch Society State Coordinator, Dale Pearce, is also available for speaking about nullification and for helping you reach out to local health care and other professionals to help stimulate their support in convincing state legislators to take nullification action in the coming legislative session. He can be contacted at 208-466-4664.

By working in concert with patriots across the state we can hold our representatives accountable to their duty. Unite with the Sovereign Idaho Coalition - Stewards of our State - and let's make Idaho the freest state in the Union.

Visit http://groups.google.com/group/sovereign-idaho-coalition to coordinate with others in your legislative district and plan a Tea Party with your Legislators.

Veto Power of the People

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:28:00 +0000

“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary.” - Constitution of the State of Idaho, Article I, Section 2

Similar wording is found in most other state constitutions, in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence. However, similar wording is not found in most school “social studies” textbooks.

American jurisprudence is built on the foundation of common law and natural rights which are firmly established in our founding documents. Any acts of government which defy common law and violate natural rights are null and void.

Jury nullification is one of the important legal and peaceful processes by which the people can resist and nullify unjust laws. It is a de facto and traditional power of juries, even though modern textbooks and judges rarely, if ever, inform people of the jury's nullification power.

The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of common law - a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further protected by two other common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict and the prohibition on retrying defendants after an acquittal.

If the people have all power, and have at all times a right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper, then they certainly have the right of jury nullification, which is tantamount to altering or reforming their government when they come together on juries to decide cases.

A single nullification verdict against a particular law may or may not alter or reform the government, but thousands of such verdicts certainly do. Witness the decisive role of jury nullification in establishing freedom of speech and press in the American Colonies, defeating the Fugitive Slave Act and ending alcohol prohibition.

There is no doubt that jury nullification was one of the rights and powers that the people commonly exercised in 1791 when the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution was adopted. As legal historian Lawrence Friedman has written:

In American legal theory, jury-power was enormous, and subject to few controls. There was a maxim of law that the jury was judge both of law and of fact in criminal cases. This idea was particularly strong in the first Revolutionary generation when memories of royal justice were fresh. Jury nullification is therefore one of the “rights . . . retained by the people” in the Ninth Amendment. And it is one of the “powers . . . reserved . . . to the people” in the Tenth Amendment.

Jury nullification is decentralization of political power. It is the people’s most important veto in our constitutional system. The jury vote is the only time the people ever vote on the application of a real law in real life.

The vast majority (probably over 99%) of jurors are unaware of their lawful right and power to judge the justness of the law and disregard it if they felt enforcing that law would bring an unjust guilty verdict.

Wiley Drake, Pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, CA, was charged with violating city zoning laws because he had exercised his duty to house and care for the poor and the homeless on Church grounds. The trial judge had misinformed the jury that they cannot consider Pastor Drake’s motives or intent, nor could they judge the law. In short, the judge told the jurors that if they find that Pastor Drakes had violated the bad and unjust law, that they must convict Pastor Drake.

Well, the jurors followed the judge’s instructions and convicted Pastor Drake of the "crime" of housing and caring for the poor on his church grounds in "violation" of city zoning codes. A few days after the trial, these jurors found out that they had the right and power to judge this bad and unjust law and could have acquitted Pastor Drake.

These jurors came to Pastor Drake’s church and apologized to Pastor Drake for their misguided conviction of him. These jurors were mad at the judge for deliberately misleading the jurors into believing that they could not judge the law as well as the facts of the case.

But no apology could reverse the wrongful conviction of Pastor Drake. The Judge could have jailed Pastor Drake for up to 2 years!!! He didn’t do so only because of the huge publicity that Pastor Drake was getting in the press. Similarly, thousands of people are wrongfully charged and convicted every month for violating bad, unjust and unconscionable laws. Some day a bad law can be used against YOU!

So what is the solution for bringing justice back to our courts?

An Idaho Fully Informed Jury Act would require the judge in every trial to inform the jury of its inherent power to judge the law as well as the facts of the case before them so that no innocent man like Pastor Drake would be wrongfully convicted by a misinformed jury.

Judges would be required to add something like the following to their instructions to the jury:

"It is the duty of the court to advise you of the law, and it is your duty to consider the instructions of the court; if you find that the law or the application which the court instructs you upon is unjust, you may vote to acquit the defendant or find him not liable for damages."

Would you like the legislature to pass an Idaho Fully Informed Jury Act? Forward this to candidates for state legislature and ask them to sponsor it. Do you think more Americans should know about this? Forward it to your email list.

Learn more about jury nullification:

Legislative Immunity: Who Benefits? by Rep. Matt Shea

noreply@blogger.com (Sovereign Idaho) — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:51:00 +0000

Recently, an oft quoted myth has resurfaced that legislative immunity is a perk for State Representatives which can be invoked whenever convenient. For example, this myth is being used as the basis for accusations of impropriety being leveled against Idaho State Representative Phil Hart (3rd H.D.)

Rep. Hart has relied on a provision in the Idaho Constitution to postpone an income tax controversy he is involved in until after the conclusion of the legislative session. Both Washington and Idaho legislators are protected from “any civil process” while their legislatures are in session. As a threshold matter of state sovereignty that protection also includes civil process attempted by the federal government.

State Constitutions

Article 2, Section 16 of the Washington Constitution reads:

Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session.

Similarly Article III, Section 7 of Idaho’s Constitution reads:

Senators and representatives in all cases...shall not be liable to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor during the ten days next before the commencement thereof…

There are eleven states that have similar language in their respective constitutions which use the phrase “any civil process.” An I.R.S. decision on what Rep. Hart’s allowable business deductions are is administrative in nature and clearly a civil matter because it involves an attempt to take property. It is therefore, “any civil process.”

The History of and Reasons for Legislative Immunity

Our Founding Fathers just freed from English tyranny wanted to ensure that elected Representatives would not face arbitrary arrest for the sake of political retribution.

As stated by the United States Supreme Court:

The privilege of legislators to be free from arrest or civil process for what they do or say in legislative proceedings has taproots in the Parliamentary struggles of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. As Parliament achieved increasing independence from the Crown, its statement of the privilege grew stronger. In 1689, the Bill of Rights declared in unequivocal language: "That the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament." 1 Wm. & Mary, Sess. 2, c. II. See Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Ad. & El. 1, 113-114 (1839)... Freedom of speech and action in the legislature was taken as a matter of course by those who severed the Colonies from the Crown and founded our Nation. It was deemed so essential for representatives of the people that it was written into the Articles of Confederation and later into the Constitution. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 372 (1951).

The Founding Fathers also wanted to ensure that the people’s voice was protected and uninhibited:

The reason for the privilege is clear. It was well summarized by James Wilson, an influential member of the Committee of Detail which was responsible for the provision in the Federal Constitution. "In order to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success, it is indispensably necessary, that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offence." Id. at 373.

The court continued in summary “Legislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of their legislative duty, not for their private indulgence but for the public good. One must not expect uncommon courage even in legislators. The privilege would be of little value if they could be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial… [Emphasis added] Id. at 377.

This idea has been affirmed time and again in many states.

In Wisconsin the Speaker of the House’s office received a subpoena for one of the speaker’s administrative assistants related to an audit of a lobbyist’s tax return. The Speaker took the position that his administrative assistant was his alter ego and should be protected by the constitutional provision that a member of the legislature not be “subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature….” The Supreme Court of Wisconsin agreed with the Speaker.

“…the meaning of a constitutional provision may be determined by looking at the objectives of the framers in adopting the provision. We conclude, as did the court of appeals, that the rationale for the privilege was to preserve the public’s right to representation in the state legislature. When a legislator cannot appear the people whom the legislator represents lose their voice in debate and vote.” [Emphasis added] State v. Beno, 341 N.W. 2d 668 (1984).

In Michigan there was a legislator who had a garnishment on his wages. The judgement was in place before the legislative session started. The Attorney General for the state of Michigan defended the legislator because the garnishment was viewed more as an attack against the legislative branch of government as opposed to an attack on the legislator. The Michigan Constitution uses the same “any civil process” language used in Idaho and Washington. Here is what the Michigan Supreme Court said of the garnishment:

“This is too narrow view of the situation. The idea back of the constitutional provision was to protect the legislators from the trouble, worry, and inconvenience of court proceedings during the session, and for a certain time before and after, so that the state could have their undivided time and attention in public affairs.” Fuller v. Barton, 208 N.W. 696 (1926).

In Arizona and Wisconsin the Attorneys General agreed that a garnishment shall not be allowed on a legislator’s paycheck during the legislative session in their respective states. The Arizona Attorney General cited the Fuller v. Barton case as his authority. “It is my opinion that the Arizona constitutional provision prohibits garnishment proceedings, and, therefore, you should not honor any garnishments involving any legislator during the sessions of the Legislature.” Arizona, Opinion of Attorney General, No. 56-24.

In Kansas the point is made again that the immunity provision of their constitution is for the benefit of the state and of the people that the legislator represents.

The use of the words “subject to” means that the member is not “liable to” the service of civil process. To construe our constitution differently would be to defeat its apparent object. The state is clearly entitled to the service of its members of the legislature during the time sessions of either branch thereof are being held. Our constitution has wisely provided that the members shall not be annoyed with arrests or suits, or be obliged to be absent from their duties….” Cook v. Senior, 45 P. 126, 127-8 (1896).

In California the language in that state constitution reads “A member of the Legislature is not subject to civil process during a session of the Legislature or for 5 days before and after a session.” The California Court of Appeals said:

In precise terms article IV, section 14, creates an exception from civil process without qualification as to the kind of subject matter of the lawsuit. Similar exemptions have been construed to cover civil actions of all kinds, including those involving the legislator’s personal affairs. …such immunities are designed to benefit the public by protecting legislators against compelled distraction and interference during the session.” Harmer v. Superior Court, 79 Cal. Reporter 855 (1969).

And finally in my state, Washington, a member of the Washington Senate, was sued for legal malpractice because he filed a lawsuit after the statute of limitations had expired. Senator Gordon Walgren, in his capacity as an attorney, argued successfully that the statute of limitations tolls (is postponed) while he was tied up with the business of the legislature.

These similar constitutional provisions convince us that immunity was granted by our constitution to protect the legislators from distraction during the stated periods of time and should be broadly construed. Immunity from service of “any civil process” should be granted during the constitutional described time periods… When a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by some positive rule of law, the time during which he is prevented from bringing suit is not to be counted against him in determining whether the statute of limitations has barred his right… Seamans v. Walgren, 82 Wn.2d 771, 774 (1973).

This is exactly the case with Representative Phil Hart. The deadline to appeal given by the IRS or the Idaho Tax Commission should toll (be postponed) during the legislative session. Otherwise, Rep. Hart would have likely missed votes and debate to address his tax litigation. However, it is important to also note that this constitutional provision cannot be waived. For example:

In Alaska, that Attorney General says the legislator has no flexibility. According to him, exercising the immunity from civil process is mandatory. “Immunity against civil process cannot be waived by the legislator since the Alaska immunity is intended to protect the public as well as serve the convenience of the legislators.” Alaska, Attorney General Opinion, 159 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 8.

Conclusion

Rep. Hart has relied on the legislative immunity provision of the Idaho Constitution to postpone working on his own tax issues, which have been ongoing for a few years. There is no question that it is within the sovereign power of the states to afford this protection. Furthermore, the law seems to be clearly on Rep. Hart’s side. So why does the witch hunt continue? Has the I.R.S. ever been used as a weapon for political retribution? Both President Richard Nixon(1) and President Bill Clinton were accused of this.(2)

For a man who wrote a book challenging the I.R.S. definition of “income,”(3) to face an arbitrary I.R.S. denial of normal business deductions(4) and then not be allowed to appeal that decision because the I.R.S. ignores the Idaho Constitution while he is in legislative session…is a glimpse into the future of an Obama nation. Remember Obama’s request for 16,000 additional I.R.S. agents?

Not only are Rep. Hart’s accusers in error, but the entire situation substantiates the very reason legislative immunity was written into the constitution in the first place…to prevent political persecution.

Matt Shea is an Army combat veteran, practicing attorney, and State Representative for the 4th Legislative District in Spokane Valley, Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon's_Enemies_List
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/22/200136.shtml
http://www.constitutionalincome.com
It has been reported in the press that the IRS’s denial of 100% of Rep. Hart’s business deductions over an eight year period was political payback after Rep. Hart’s refusal to turn over the names and addresses of those who purchased his book. Now both the IRS and the Idaho Tax Commission are attempting to impose the income tax on the amount of these denied deductions which totals approximately $300,000.