The intent here is not necessarily to give a word by word rebuttal of the Heritage report and Kyl’s speech, but instead – to address the overarching themes of his speech.

The Heritage report is prefaced with an abstract, featuring Thomas Jefferson’s declaration that “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance…” This idea, misapplied, forms the foundation of Kyl’s thesis, as vigilance, much like the word defense, is stretched to mean overseas intervention and military budgets of grotesque proportions.

A quick note on terminology is important here. Kyl states early in his talk that “liberals and progressives have never been supportive of the imperative to preserve American sovereignty…” While the term sovereignty is sometimes used in a foreign policy context to denote independence, Kyl seems to use it as a synonym for the word security. He goes on to list three ways in which American “sovereignty” is put at risk, and each relates not to independence from international governmental organizations, but to issues commonly related to national security. They are: cuts to so-called defense, opposition to foreign intervention, and privacy concerns (he didn’t give details on this last item, citing too little time).

Before moving into Kyl’s full argument, it is important to point out the false dichotomy he presents for the audience. There is no fundamental difference in the foreign policy ideologies of conservative and progressive politicians, as judged by their actions. Practically speaking, the Obama foreign policy is the same as Bush’s, which is the same as Clinton’s, which is just like that of Bush before him, and so on. To be sure, progressive politicians often speak in more humble terms, but their actions – escalating drone strikes, tripling troop levels in Afghanistan, ignoring due process, and launching new wars – belie this rhetoric.

In his lecture, Kyl does not aim his criticism at liberals, but instead directs it at other Republicans. He warns of a “creeping sentiment within certain Republican circles that America is indeed in a period of decline, mostly due to runaway spending, and that we cannot, therefore, afford the kind of military we had in the past and should disengage from many areas of the world.” This is to say that these Republicans are beginning to reject the neoconservative dogma that has dominated U.S. policy for decades. Kyl laments this – but it’s a good thing.

Intervention is not conservative and it is not consistent with “America’s founding principles,” nor is intervention conducive to a “strong national defense,” in its true sense. For the United States, the 20^th Century marked the rise of foreign intervention, and it was ushered in by progressives, notably Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, neither of whom was very conservative. Consider also that Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson – all progressives – were proponents of foreign military involvement. By and large, the foreign policy of the U.S. during its first century was far more humble, mirroring the advice from the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

Foreign entanglements, of the kind Kyl advocates, degrade the actual defense of the country in three ways. With troops stationed all over the planet they are more vulnerable to attack and, cannot adequately defend the U.S. The bombing of naval ships and foreign barracks provide examples of the former; and the fact that the U.S. military was better prepared to defend South Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Germany on 9/11 explains the latter. But the last, and most fundamental reason of all, is that intervention begets intervention by way of blowback. When the U.S. intervenes in the affairs of another country it necessarily creates enemies by choosing sides and killing civilians – even accidentally. Thus begins a cycle where the victims’ resentment builds, they retaliate, are attacked again, and still more seeds of blowback are sewn.

This is to say nothing of the economic price tag for what amounts to an empire. Kyl brings up the perennial argument over entitlements versus military spending, and suggests that cutting “defense” spending to accommodate entitlement funding would be “devastating to national security.” Reducing defense spending would likely be detrimental to security, but so much of the pentagon’s budget is dedicated not to actual defense, but instead is offensive in nature. Not a single one of the many wars now being fought is truly defensive, nor do the inhabitants of the targeted countries pose any credible threat to the U.S. mainland.

Kyl admits that “the fastest-growing part of the budget is in personnel costs, especially for health care.” This is all due to the very policies which he promotes. Personnel costs are higher and the price of healthcare continues to rise directly because the military is spread across the globe waging wars with no end in sight. Tens of thousands of wounded veterans, many of them burn victims and amputees, the hundreds of thousands suffering from traumatic brain injury, and the more than one hundred thousand on psychiatric drugs all cause spending to rise dramatically.

Like all good advocates of the state, Kyl uses the Orwellian term “interests” to supplement his argument. U.S. foreign policy has evolved significantly, perhaps beginning with Thomas Jefferson’s authorization to deploy troops to Tripoli in 1801. But with a military presence now in some 130 countries, virtually anything could be construed as part of “our national interest” and used to justify intervention. We must get away from this mentality – that everything that happens in the world deserves an immediate response from the U.S. military. It’s destructive, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s immoral.

But as things stand today, even ancillary issues are used to justify inserting the U.S. government into the affairs of other nations. Kyl laments the decision of several members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to reject a “resolution in support of the besieged Syrian people.” The resolution would have established as U.S. policy that “the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people cannot be realized so long as Bashar al-Assad remains in power and that he must step aside.” The reason it was rejected by those Republicans, he surmises, was because such a policy “might ultimately lead to taking some kind of action.”

In fact, the resolution would have only codified existing U.S. policy, as the U.S. State Department had already promised to fund the rebellion and provide communications equipment as a month prior to the aforementioned resolution. And, it is widely understood that many of the previous military conflicts began with resolutions and so-called “non-lethal aid.” Rarely is an all-out military invasion something that happens overnight. In practically all cases it stems from another Orwellian term: “diplomacy.”

In the twisted definition now used by war Hawks, “diplomacy” is no longer negotiations and attempts at non-violent solutions. It has now morphed into an aggressive process that involves sanctions, threats, blockades, and the deployment of troops, naval ships, and aircraft to further isolate and coerce the targeted parties into compliance. That so many Republicans refused to participate in this endeavor is to be celebrated, as most often it is not the political and military leaders that suffer from such “diplomacy,” but the people of the country who have no say in the matter.

In his final segment, Kyl invokes Jesse Helms, urging Americans to “demonstrate not only to ourselves, but to the world that as a nation we stand by American values—freedom, rule of law, sovereignty—both at home and abroad.” If this advice is to be taken seriously, and not meant merely as a platitude, Americans should reject the foreign policy shared by neoconservatives and progressives now being applied. It is indeed anathema to freedom and the rule of law, as the Patriot Act (also known as the “repeal the 4^th Amendment act”), certain provisions in the NDAA, and everything the TSA has done in the last decade attest.

Become a member and support the TAC!

In the end, Kyl asks: “How do we determine the appropriate American leadership role?” Of course a rudimentary approach involves looking to the constitution. That document is very clear on how war is to be declared. That is the legal means, but it’s vague as to why it may be declared, or the moral reason. For the answer to this we must look to the principle of non-aggression for moral guidance. Murray Rothbard defined the non-aggression principle thusly: “No one may threaten or commit violence (‘aggress’) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.”  

In essence, this is the Golden Rule, and it should guide foreign policy; not some bastardized definition of “defense,” “interests,” or any other manipulated term to sterilize unjustified military force.

Vince Brown, for example, gets the ball rolling with this:

“I don’t find the appeal here, isn’t all it says is that they will simply just sit back and watch the feds do what they want?”

Brian Ryman goes a little deeper:

“While the state of Virginia has passed what many feel to be the first significant blow against the NDAA , I have a few reservations about what is purported by some to be a victory. My main concern is that the bill has no provisions for Virginia state agencies to interpose themselves between the federal authorities and its citizens. This should be the focus of the legislation….”

The implication here is that unless there’s a state law passed requiring conflict – a state agency standoff vs a federal agency – which is dangerous indeed – then somehow there’s little to no value.

But is that really the case? Of course not. More later.

Tom Rankin takes it a step further, insisting that anything but physical pushback on the feds is not only worthless, but some kind of a political trick. Here’s what he had to say:

“Just how does this stop the Feds from enforcing NDAA. All it says is you can enforce NDAA in my state but I will not help you. This is pure bull. It is just feel good legislation that gets the public off the politicians ass. I am very disappointed in The Tenth Amendment Center and question it’s motives.”

Interesting.

I’ve often heard that converts to a new religion are commonly known to be more zealous than people raised in those same beliefs. I guess here at the TAC we’re finding the same thing in our own movement – for nullification.

The problem, though, is this – these people, while probably quite well-intentioned, are either being misdirected, or are just misinformed about the big picture.

NON-COMPLIANCE IS A BIG DEAL

To clarify, we should first define the word nullification. It is “any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null, void, or unenforceable in a specific area.”

Thomas Jefferson referred to nullification as the “moderate middle ground” – the effective path that lies between violent and bloody revolution on one hand and unlimited submission on the other.

With that in mind, we can recognize that a nullification of a federal act can take on all kinds of different forms. It often requires an entire puzzle – and each piece of that puzzle plays an important part. There’s education, outreach, non-compliance, and more. It doesn’t always a physical interposition by local agents – standing between you and the federal government.

And while it sure gets the testosterone boiling, an O.K. Corral-style standoff is not needed, and is almost never effective. Consider the state-level resistance to the 2005 Real ID act. Over the past five years, we’ve learned that a federal law can be effectively held at bay or even pushed back through non-compliance alone.

When Virginia’s HB1160 was being debated, Delegate Bob Marshall gave a perspective on the importance of non-compliance when he said:

“During World War II, the federal government incarcerated tens of thousands of loyal Japanese Americans in the name of national security. By this bill, Virginia declares that it will not participate in similar modern-day efforts.”

The federal government most certainly needs compliance, if not outright assistance, from the states when it does its dirty deeds. Information-sharing, logistics assistance, access to infrastructure, help from sheriffs blocking roads, and the like. They can rarely pull things off without help from state and local officials. Just ask the DEA when they come to California. They’re never able to pull off a raid without the help of the local sheriff or police departments. Refusing compliance is a big deal – and it will set the stage for others to do the same.

WWRPD?

When Rosa Parks refused to move the to back of the bus – she taught us just how to deal with laws that are unconstitutional – immoral – and unjust.

On one end of the spectrum, she didn’t call for her local friends to interpose on her behalf, using force and guns to arrest the progress of evil being waged against her. And, on the other end of the spectrum, she didn’t accept the notion of unlimited submission either.

Before refusing to comply, Rosa Parks didn’t first pass a law to physically stop people from violating her rights. She didn’t need to arrest an offending federal or state agent to move her cause forward.

Rosa Parks also didn’t put the fate of her liberty in the hands of the political system.

She didn’t simply comply and spend a bunch of time knocking on doors advocating for a new candidate for office. She didn’t comply and then spend her time in an expensive and unwinnable lawsuit. She didn’t just comply – and then plan on voting in a new politician to change the law which was oppressing her.

Become a member and support the TAC!

She did something that each one of us needs to start doing more often in our lives. She sat there and said NO.

When Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, she didn’t have any “teeth” in her action. Her non-compliance helped expand the growth of a massive movement which resulted in the change she sought.

Whether the issue is mandates, or indefinite detention, or the TSA, or anything in between – that’s our blueprint for freedom. I hope you’ll join us.

The law compelled people of all states to “assist” federal marshals and their deputies with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves. It brought all trials involving alleged fugitive slaves under federal jurisdiction. It included large fines for anyone who aided a slave in their escape, even by simply giving them food or shelter.

On top of it, bounties were paid to commissioners in fugitive slave cases. $10 was paid if a person was sent back to slavery, and $5 if the person was allowed freedom. The federal government was paying people to capture other people and send them to slavery.

The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for alleged “slaves,” and made their testimony inadmissible in court. The written testimony of the supposed slave master, on the other hand, which could be presented to the court by slave hunters, was given preferential treatment.

STATE RESISTANCE

In response, Northern States intensified efforts to pass what were known as “personal liberty laws.” These had already been growing over time in response to the original Fugitive Slave Act years earlier.

Vermont passed a “Habeas Corpus Law,” requiring state judicial and law enforcement officials to actually help captured fugitive slaves there. Massachusetts took a really strong stand – and passed a law that provided for kidnapping charges to anyone trying to use these “indefinite detention” provisions of the fugitive slave act.

No federal agent was charged with kidnapping in Massachusetts, though. But, this was only because no escapee was ever captured for return after the law was passed. The state response was working.

In fact, Northern states were so successful overall that when South Carolina seceded ten years later the people there named this as one of their primary reasons for leaving the Union. From their publicly-released “Declaration of Causes,” was this:

“The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the [Fugitive Slave Acts] or render useless any attempt to execute them…”

NDAA: THE ROAD BACKWARDS

In 1942, FDR signed an executive order which authorized the creation of military zones “from which any or all persons may be excluded.”

This led to the roundup of around 110,000 Japanese-Americans and Japanese citizens living here in California and along the West Coast. Without due process to assist them, these people were relocated and sent to internment camps. Many more were classified as “enemy aliens” and subjected to increased restrictions.

Like the Fugitive Slave Acts and Japanese mass internment, the federal government has again taken new powers never intended under the Constitution. Under sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, the feds again claim the power to classify people in such a way that they no longer have rights.

President Obama and Congress have dropped the terms “fugitive slave” and “enemy alien.” Instead, they use “suspected terrorist” as a way to eliminate due process these days.

RESISTANCE TODAY

Today, in the spirit of the 19th century Personal Liberty Laws, states and local communities around the country are taking action against NDAA detention powers. Virginia recently became the first state in the country to pass a law refusing compliance with or assistance to federal agents carrying out detentions without due process against citizens of that state. Arizona’s legislature just passed a similar bill. And a number of other states are working on the same.

But, it’s not just states. More than ten local communities are on board too. For example, up north in Fairfax, CA, they passed legislation which says that they will:

“Instruct all our Town of Fairfax agencies to decline requests by federal agencies acting under detention powers granted by the NDAA that could infringe upon residents’ freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, or rights to counsel.”

Become a member and support the TAC!

JUST THE BEGINNING

When Northern States protected habeas corpus against federal encroachments in the 19th century, they were doing their duty to protect liberty and the Constitution. Today, states and local communities are doing the same.

They can and should serve as a powerful check on federal power. In fact, the framers counted on it. It’s all about local actions. As Democrats and Republicans continue to work together in DC to take away our rights, it’s our local communities who must and will rise up to save them.

That’s what establishment hawks Charles Stimson and David Rivkin say the Tenth Amendment Center and other organizations are doing by pushing back against the new “indefinite detention” powers in Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.

But, even in the face of yet another unconstitutional federal act, the People of the United States just gained an important ally in defense of their Constitution: the Commonwealth of Virginia, and state employees in particular.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell just signed into law House Bill 1160 (HB1160), which would prohibit state agencies from participating in unconstitutional detentions under the NDAA.

Stimson and Rivkin are mighty upset about this too. Their recent Washington Post op-ed on the issue is so filled with errors, distortions and half-truths (I’m being generous with the latter), that their irritation about the bill either clouded their ability to read, or shows they’re little more than propagandists for yet more unlimited executive power.

BIG FLAWS

I’m going to focus on two big flaws in their analysis which seriously damage their credibility on the issue. First, there’s this:

“Virginia’s legislature recently passed a bill that forbids state employees, including police and members of the National Guard, from participating in the investigation, surveillance, detention or arrest of any suspected member of al-Qaeda or its affiliates, if that suspect is a U.S. citizen.”

Wrong.

HB1160 does not, as the authors claim, forbid state agency participation of “any suspected member….if that suspect is a U.S. citizen.” To make such a statement would require a reader of the bill to completely miss the extremely important qualifier, which reads as follows:

….if such aid would knowingly place [applicable state agents] in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, any provision of the Code of Virginia, any act of the General Assembly, or any regulation of the Virginia Administrative Code…

Think about that. Assistance in investigation, surveillance, detention or arrest is still permitted, as long as such assistance complies with the Constitution of the United States.

Knowingly violating the Constitution is what is prohibited.

Are Stimson and Rivkin in favor of requiring people to “knowingly” violate the Constitution? Are they just too busy to read the full text of a one-page bill? Or, are they intentionally leaving off this important qualifier from the bill itself in order to frighten you into thinking that states like Virginia (and soon others too) are dangerous?

If it’s the latter, that’s a textbook case of fear mongering in my opinion.

Next on the chopping block is this:

…Although the federal government has no inherent constitutional right to compel state officials to help in combating al-Qaeda, since 9/11 it has funneled billions of dollars to all states that require fulsome cooperation from state law enforcement authorities. Meanwhile, state National Guard forces, when deployed overseas, are subject to federal control. For these reasons, Virginia’s legislation violates the federal law….

Both are wrong, but the big fallacy here is the latter. It’s so distorted that it bears repeating:

Meanwhile, state National Guard forces, when deployed overseas, are subject to federal control.

Are they claiming that HB1160 is trying to prevent Virginia’s National Guard forces from acting when under federal control? Seems so. But this is totally misleading. If I could get into the minds of the authors, I’d suspect I’d see a little fear mongering as their motivation, but who am I to say?

Anyway, here’s the real deal, from the text of the actual bill. The people that HB1160 applies to are a person of specific state agencies…

…or member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty

When national guard troops have been called up by the federal government, they are no longer on “official state duty,” they are on official federal duty. So, of course they’d no longer be under the purview of HB1160. This language was included for just that reason.

Become a member and support the TAC!

Did our two authors just miss that part of the sentence, or did they intentionally ignore it? Either way, this is elementary stuff, and these two have some reading to do.

NOT RELIABLE

On the NDAA itself, I do recognize that Stimson and Rivkin made a number of statements about its supposed constitutionality. But, my opinion is this: If they can’t even get these things right about a one-page bill, how can anyone trust them to provide correct constitutional analysis of a bill far longer?

I sure don’t.

Pointing fingers and talking tough about some issues is one thing.  ACTING tough – that’s another thing altogether.

This week, as you travelled to Washington DC, you made this statement – “I have a duty and obligation to defend the people of Arizona – especially when the federal government fails to do their job.”

You certainly do have a duty and an obligation.  But the time for tough talk, Governor Brewer, is over.  The time to act is upon you.

AN IMPORTANT BILL ON YOUR DESK

When you return from Washington DC this week, you’ll find that you have an extremely important bill on your desk – awaiting your signature.  Senate Bill 1182 was passed by wide margins in your state’s legislature, 34-22 in the House and 20-8 in the Senate.

What does this bill do?  Well it’s pretty important stuff.  It says this:

This state and any agency of this state shall not provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the national defense authorization act of 2012, Public Law 112-81, against any citizen of the United States.

Once you sign this bill into law, it will also make it a criminal offense for any public officer, employee or agent of the state of Arizona to make any attempt to assist in such federal kidnapping.

If you think it’s hyperbole to use the word “kidnapping” to describe the so-called “indefinite detention” provisions of the NDAA, think again.  When you remove due process from the equation, “indefinite detention” is really nothing more than government-sanctioned kidnapping.

The Constitution is pretty straightforward when it comes to due process – and these newly-claimed federal powers are nothing short of an abomination on the limits that the Founding Fathers gave us.

Like you said, you do “have a duty and obligation to defend the people of Arizona” – and that bill sitting on your desk right now is an opportunity for you to do so.

CONCERNS

But, I’m a little concerned that you don’t really mean what you say when you talk about defending the People of Arizona.  For example, in 2010 the People of your state voted to approve a new medical marijuana program.  The founders were clear that such decisions would be under the purview of the people of each state, not the federal government.  But the feds on this issue, like on virtually everything else, have been interfering with the people’s choices for far too long.

With that vote, the people of your state took a major step towards turning things around and putting the decision-making where it rightfully belongs.

So what did you do?  Well, you sued your own state in federal court to stop the people of Arizona from implementing the law they rightfully passed.  And now you complain about the feds suing you?  We can talk about that inconsistency another time.  For now, let’s focus on moving forward and doing what’s right.

For any true constitutionalist, there is an important principle at stake here, one that you appear to be willing to sacrifice because you disagreed with the policy chosen by Arizona’s voters.  The federal government is only authorized to do what has been delegated to it in the Constitution…and nothing more.  Period.

DUTY TO THE CONSTITUTION

It doesn’t matter if you like or dislike the policies – your duty and obligation – the oath you swore – means you need to help the people of your state do what they’ve set out to do.  Reject unconstitutional federal acts.

Whether those federal usurpations of power cover weed or “indefinite detention,” the end result is the same.  Your duty to the people of your state – and to the Constitution – is to do everything in your power to stop anyone and everyone from violating their rights.  That is, unless you prefer the Nancy Pelosi version of the Constitution and believe that all federal law is “supreme.”

So which is it, Governor Brewer?  Nancy Pelosi’s constitution or James Madison’s?

The time for tough talk, ma’am, is over.  The time for duty is now.  It’s not next year, and not after the next election.  It’s not next month and not next week.  The time for you to step up and act is today, not tomorrow, right now.

A simple stroke of the pen, and you’ve done your duty.

Sign the bill Governor Brewer, and prove to Arizona and to the world that you’re more than just a bunch of tough talk or a wagging finger.  Prove to all of us that you’re a constitutional hero.

Your moment is now.

ACTION ITEM FOR ARIZONA

If you live in Arizona, contact Gov. Brewer now.

Politely, but firmly, ask her to sign SB1182. Remind her that she has a duty to protect and defend the Constitution and an obligation to the people of Arizona. Tell her that the language in sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA is too vague and undefined to leave to chance. The federal government simply cannot be allowed to possess even a hint of such power.

You can find contact information for the governor’s office HERE.

ACTION ITEMS FOR THE REST OF THE COUNTRY

If you do not live in Arizona, you should still contact Brewer and tell her the rest of the country is watching. Arizona has the opportunity to step up as a leader in protecting the most basic freedom and liberties that we cherish as Americans.

If your state, county or city has not taken steps to stop kidnapping under the NDAA, you can find model Liberty Preservation Act legislation that you can propose to your local politicians HERE.

To track NDAA nullification legislation across the U.S., click HERE.

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Natelson explains What habeas corpus is – and why it is important. He gives us an overview of the Founders’ view of habeas corpus, and specifically, the Constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus. Also discussed are Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 – and why this should be of great concern to those who support liberty – and the writ of habeas corpus.

Rob also discusses in more detail what he wrote in his book, The Original Constitution – “American state habeas statutes in force during the founding era sometimes protected only “citizens” However, the federal constitutional right was defined by English common law, and therefore extended to some non-citizens” – and the important 2008 Supreme Court case, Boumediene v. Bush.

Finally, Natelson gives us his opinion of St. George Tucker’s view in 1803 that “Habeas corpus cannot be suspended, unless in cases of actual rebellion or invasion. A suspension under any other circumstances, whatever might be the pretext, would be unconstitutional, and consequently must be disregarded by those whose duty it is to grant the writ.”

Just by keeping the message the same, we see shifts over who leads those attacks too. For example, during the Bush years, we’d often get conservatives attacking us for opposing his unconstitutional policies.

PEOPLE REALLY SAY THIS STUFF

We hear things like -

“Are you with the terrorists? Bush is just trying to keep us safe. That’s his job!”

Or the classic…

“You don’t like it here? Move to Cuba, commie!”

These days, it’s the same kind of message, just a little moved around…

“”He’s not waging a ‘war’ – he’s trying to save those people in Libya from a horrible dictator!”

“You don’t like the Affordable Care Act…what, do you want black people banned from lunch counters, too?”

Seriously. These are emails and comments we received. But look, I’m not complaining. I’m just saying that at times it is motivational to hear and read these things – from both average people and the media. And, at other times, especially after a week of 18 hour workdays, it can be quite draining.

Why? Because with that kind of ignorant partisan-hackery being quite common – sometimes things seem, well…insurmountable. Pointless. Like, why not join with the masses, do a little shopping, enjoy the game, and refer to every single political conversation as “off limits” because we don’t want to think about it or deal with it.

A SUPPORT SYSTEM

No, that kind of thought doesn’t happen real often, but with most people who slug it out day in and day out – dragging through the mud pits against the monster government that exists today – such thoughts certainly come up from time to time.

What’s my point? Without a support system – loving friends and family to back up our work – constantly pushing forward could never really happen.

George Mason had his wife Ann. Henry David Thoreau had great friends in Ellery and Harrison. Rosa Parks had her husband Raymond.

Today, people like Tom Woods have a foundation as solid as a rock with Heather. Jim Babka gets endless support from Susanne. Ron Paul has the backbone of an amazing woman like Carol.

And my luck personally has been unbelievable – to have good friends who either directly support my work – or tolerate my endless ramblings about it. But no one, and I mean no one, has provided me more strength, support, motivation and success than my partner for life, Sarah.

Being a special day, her birthday that is, tonight, I want to celebrate her support and love for me and the work I do. And with that, I think it’s essential for us to thank all the amazing people like Sarah out there – whether their name is Heather, Harrison, Susanne, or Raymond – this great movement for liberty couldn’t exist without you.

OUR FAMILY

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we consider each and every one of you part of our family. Our community is strong – and growing stronger each year. This could never happen without you.

Those of you who only read our website, or visit our YouTube or Facebook channels – you are extremely important to us. Every one of you on our national team – and every single state and local coordinator for us here at the Tenth Amendment Center – your participation has been essential. Members – old and new – bloggers and columnists, listeners to this show. Every one of you and more.

THANK YOU!

Each one of you plays a vital role – in moving this ship forward.

No matter what they throw at us – forward is the only direction we know. Thank you Sarah, and all of you who take part in your own way – for helping make this happen.

Become a member and support the TAC!

So, to all of you non-activists out there – spouses, significant others, friends and family – each and every one of you is extremely important.

The next time you have to hear one of us talk endlessly about some liberty-oriented issue that you consider to be unimportant, obscure, or even just downright boring…the next time you have to help one of us endure long work days with little sleep, stress, deadlines, personal attacks – and more – please remember this:

You are appreciated. More than you likely could ever know.

Thank you.

The term middle ground is most often used in the political sphere, but it is not solid ground. The only solid ground in this Republic is the ground that was formed by the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries, who didn’t sacrifice so much only to have it become a vain exercise decades later. They didn’t create a nation that would become another England in so many ways, from encroaching on people’s liberties, to excessive taxation, and seeking to control other nations. By becoming middle grounders, we’ve become ungrounded.

We’ve been sold a bill of goods over the decades, and most of us have come to savor those goods, which take the form of an imperial presidency, high taxation, reduced civil liberties, welfare, ad nauseum. We will accept mandated toilets, light bulbs, windows, auto standards, etc., as long as we aren’t hassled too much in our daily activities, as long as these mandates are “hidden” from us, buried in the regulations and duties imposed on businesses that serve us. We have less liberty, but hey, we’re safer.

I’ve found that there are three main impediments to the effective restoration of our Republican form of government. The first is a populace ignorant of the founding principles of our Republic, as well as the principles that informed the Founding Fathers. Next is the outgrowth of that ignorance: our elected officials, practically all of whom forget, in daily practice, what country they are in. (They would be perfectly at home in any European socialist wonderland.) The last impediment is our income tax system, especially where the federal government found it to their advantage—not ours’ mind you—to have an income tax (a tax on our labor) withheld from our paychecks. This mandated, legalized pilferage has grown the federal government to a size that could not have been contemplated by the Founding Fathers, and as a result of this funding and growth, our freedoms have eroded.

The bigger a central government becomes, the more it takes from the periphery – the states and the people – to maintain its hegemony.

Many will dismiss this article as being “out there,” as not being middle groundish, but in so doing they  make my point. And anyway, I couldn’t care less. I reference below the Introduction to the 1974 book: “Voices of the American Revolution,” by the People’s Bicentennial Commission. Reprinted in that book is an Associated Press release from the late 1960s:

“Only one person out of 50 approached on Miami streets by a reporter agreed to sign a typed copy of the Declaration of Independence. Two called it ‘commie junk,’ one threatened to call the police, and another warned: ‘Be careful who you show that kind of antigovernment stuff to, buddy.’

Comments from those who took the trouble to read the first three paragraphs:

‘This is the work of a raver.’
‘Somebody ought to call the FBI about this sort of rubbish.’
‘Meaningless.’
‘The boss’ll have to read this before I can let you put it in the shop window. But politically, I can tell you he don’t lean that way. He’s a Republican.’

Become a member and support the TAC!

If anyone thinks our situation has improved since then, all they need to do is hear the responses to questions Jay Leno asks in his candid street interviews.

The middle ground is a meaningless ground. It is a creation of those who muddle the issue of whether the federal government can do whatever it wants, or if it has to operate within its Constitutional constraints, specifically outlined in Article 1, Section 8 and buttressed by the Tenth Amendment. These muddlers or middlers are either disingenuous, or they are clueless. They either want the federal government to ignore the Constitution, or they want the federal government to assume extra powers because it is for the “good of the people.” (And it scores “I care” points for e politicians when it comes time for reelection.)

The middle ground is not solid ground. It lies on a fault. And the fault is ours.

“Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another – too often ending in the loss of both.”
–Tryon Edwards

NOTE: Michael Boldin will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! Philadelphia. Get tickets HERE – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

*******

Now that the Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of several parts of the “Obamacare” health care package, plenty of opponents are saying that there’s now a chance to get it overturned.

How big of a chance? I think – Almost none.

The unelected, unaccountable, politically-connected lawyers which make up the Supreme Court have done an absolutely horrible job of upholding the Constitution. In fact, from 1937-1995 the Supreme Court didn’t rule one single congressional act to be outside of their constitutional limits. 60 years – they ruled absolutely nothing unconstitutional, and that included much of the new deal and all of the Great society. Since that time, overruling Congress has been a rare occurrence, at best.

Not a good track record at all.

At times, I would argue that the Supremes have actually created most of the problems we face today. Why? Because they don’t like overturning their own decisions either. One ruling expands federal power, and the next one almost always seems to be based off the previous.

Bad building blocks make for a dangerous foundation.

And on top of it all, because of the way things have worked in this country for a long time, most people believe that they only have 3 options to stop federal power –

1) protesting and marching on DC in the hopes that federal politicians will limit their own power
2) voting the bums out, in the hopes that the new bums will limit their own power and
3) suing in court in the hopes that federal judges will limit federal power.

Sorry to break this to you, but it ain’t working.

For over 100 years, federal power has been on one path, and one path alone. It doesn’t matter which political party has been in charge in DC or which individual has been president – federal power always grows and your liberty is always less.

George Will wrote in a column recently that “if the court were to ratify Congress’ disregard for settled contract law, Congress’ power to compel contractual relations would have no logical stopping point. Which is why this case is the last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government.”

Sorry George, you’re wrong. We’ve been there for a long time already.

When the federal government claims the power to determine the extent of its own powers – unlimited government is already here.

Now if you happen to think, for some crazy reason, that claiming the power to tell you what size toilet you can have, what kind of light bulb you can own, or what kind of plant you can grow in your backyard it NOT unlimited power, it’s just a matter of time before politicians decide to start using the power they already have to do things that YOU consider unlimited. It’s just a matter of time.

So, as the last 100+ years of nearly incessant growth of federal power proves to us already, even IF the supremes do the rare thing and rule against Congress, in a decade that’ll be just a blip.

Without changing strategies – and stopping the insanity of going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal government – the freight train to totalitarianism will be unstoppable.

Instead of begging, yet again, federal politicians to limit their own power, how about something different?

That’s what we’ll be educating people about at Nullify Now! Philadelphia on March 31st. Multiple speakers and experts will teach you about what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison advised when 2 or more branches of the federal government attack the constitution and your liberty.

The States. They not only have a right, but a duty, to stand up and say NO to unconstitutional federal acts. Most of what the feds do qualifies.

Please join us in Philly on March 31st – you won’t just be educated. You’ll be empowered.

http://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/

Every day, it feels more and more like we live in what comes very close to being an elected dictatorship.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) asked the Secretary specifically, “Do you think you can act without Congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria?”

He was visibly quite taken aback when Panetta responded.

“Our goal would be to seek international permission, and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this — whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress…I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

The defense secretary made it clear to the senator that the primary objective would be to first secure international approval for military action, and then tell the Congress what they might decide to do, after which the administration would consider asking for congressional approval.

After Sessions expressed  his complete dismay at the secretary’s clear intent to exclude Congress, which possess sole constitutional authority to declare war, from the decision making process, Panetta defended his position.

“I’ve also served with Republican presidents and Democratic presidents who always reserved the right to defend this country if necessary.”

Secretary Panetta correctly asserts that every president has rightfully reserved the authority to defend this country, if necessary. But I would also argue that a no-fly zone, or any other offensive military action in Syria, is far from necessary to defend the United States.

As might be expected, there was no shortage of criticism from Republicans, much of it aimed at the administration for  seeking international permission rather than the president usurping Congress’ constitutionally delegated war powers. I won’t name names, but many Republicans, who either pretended to be outraged or were genuinely upset, had no issues at all with previous Republican administrations using the military for offensive wars without prior permission from Congress.

But that’s another article…

Frankly, what surprises me is not Panetta’s claim that the president has unlimited authority to wage war without Congressional approval. Lots of presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, have claimed that authority, at least since Truman’s decision to intervene in the Korean War without consulting Congress. What surprises me is that anyone in the Obama administration still feels obligated to provide any kind of legal cover.

Yet Secretary Panetta did bother to offer a up a fig leaf, asserting that the president has the right to defend this country without obtaining prior permission from Congress. I do think it is worth analyzing this statement, since it can illustrate something about what powers the Constitution actually delegates to the federal government when it comes to waging defensive war.

So was Panetta correct about a president’s right to defend this country without permission from Congress?

The Short Answer is, yes.

I’m unaware of any reliable constitutional scholar who would deny that the president is empowered by the Constitution to repel an invasion of U.S. territory. In their book, Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush, Kevin Gutzman and Tom Woods explain the Framers’ intent.

“Although the Constitution withholds from the president the power to commence hostilities, the Framers did envision a defensive presidential power to respond to attacks in extreme cases that will admit of no delay.”

However, equating the initiation of a no-fly zone, air strikes against foreign military targets, or the commitment of ground forces, however small or covert, in a country located on the other side of the planet with “defending” our country is simply “rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts.”, as Jeremy Bentham once described a different set of ideas I happen to embrace.

Even if the Assad regime, or the insurgents who might overthrow it, presented a clear and present danger to the United States, that would hardly justify military action without a declaration of war from Congress. As Kevin Gutzman and Tom Woods pointed out in the same chapter of their book, “Even when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt did not retaliate on his own authority but went to Congress for a declaration of war.”

There is no constitutional basis whatsoever for engaging in offensive warfare unless the decision to do so is made by Congress. For a more detailed examination of this question, I highly recommend reading constitutional scholar, Robert G. Natelson’s article, “Obama’s Libyan Operations are Unconstitutional”. His piece systematically dismantles the flimsy arguments of those who would try to portray Obama’s actions in Libya as somehow “less than war”, or an attack on Syria as a defensive operation.

Even though it appears that U.S. military action in Syria may be off the table for now, it’s still important to examine the arguments surrounding this conflict and previous ones as well. When arguments are made in support of unconstitutional wars in the future, those of us who wish to support and defend the Constitution can be better prepared to explain and articulate the very limited war powers delegated to the executive branch, in order to educate others who may still be on the fence.

What Do We Do About it?

And for those who do still care about the Constitution and the rule of law, the next question must be, “What then do we do about it when those in power simply refuse to abide by the Constitution?”.

I’m personally convinced that the internal checks and balances built into the federal government broke down long ago and are, for all practical purposes, useless at this point in history. The three branches of the federal government conspire to usurp more power at least as often as they act to limit each other’s power. That’s why many concerned citizens, frustrated by the failure of elections to arrest the progress of tyranny year after year, insist that there’s just going to have to be a revolution at some point. But the federal system established by the Constitution provides at least one final structural protection against tyranny that does not involve popular resistance, secession or full scale revolution. That protection comes from the power of the states.

In his “Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798”, Judge Abel P. Upshur asked the question, “Is there, or is there not, any principle in the Constitution of the United States, by which the States may resist the usurpations of the Federal Government; or are such usurpations to be resisted only by revolution?”

I certainly believe that there is such a conservative principle in the Constitution, otherwise I would not be writing this. And thankfully, the Tenth Amendment Center has been providing model legislation for several years, specifically designed to help state legislators make use of that conservative principle, otherwise known as state nullification.

But can state nullification provide an effective check against an out of control president determined to wage unconstitutional wars? I certainly believe it can. But in order to work, it requires the people of the several states to shift their focus from Washington, D.C. to their state capitals.

Defend the Guard legislation is designed to reassert the authority of governors over their Army and Air National Guard troops. Many people are unaware of the enormous role played by Army and Air National Guard in overseas military operations, without which the occupation of countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan would be virtually impossible.

Constitutional Homeland Security

Under the Constitution, the organized militia (now called the National Guard after the 1903 Dick Act) may only be called into duty by the federal government in three specific situations. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the Congress is given the power to pass laws for “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

The organized militia was intended by the Founders and Ratifiers to be defense force and nothing more. Deployments outside the country were not considered, and neither were internal deployments in pursuance of powers that were not delegated to the federal government.

Congress has passed numerous laws in the past 100 years giving the federal government additional authority not mentioned in the Constitution. But without amendment, altering the enumerated powers by legislative fiat is, in and of itself, unconstitutional. Campaigns in states around the country are working to reassert the authority of governors over guard troops.

Become a member and support the TAC!

But that’s not all. Other state nullification bills designed to limit the power of the presidency have been introduced as well. The Liberty Preservation Act, for example, is a state-level response to constitutional violations in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

In many ways, resistance to executive usurpation and tyranny has just begun at the state level. But make no mistake, the struggle is on, and it mustn’t cease. Rather, it must be escalated. Because as much as many of us would like to believe that Congress will suddenly grow a spine, or that the federal judiciary will rein in the imperial presidency sometime soon, such a hope is unrealistic at best.

The states on the other hand, haven’t been completely subordinated, and it’s through them that We the People still have a chance to prevent Caesar from completing his crossing of the Rubicon.