Tenth Amendment Center: Constitutional Conversation http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/podcast/ Working to limit the power of the federal government Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:10:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=Tenth Amendment Center: Constitutional Conversation en hourly 1 Discussions applying the 10th Amendment and the constitution to historical issues and the most pressing concerns of today. Tenth Amendment Center no info@tenthamendmentcenter.com (Tenth Amendment Center) Please Share! Discussions applying the 10th Amendment and the constitution to historical issues and the most pressing concerns of today. constitution,politics,government,10th,amendment,tenth,amendment,liberty Tenth Amendment Center: Constitutional Conversation http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/powerpress/tenth-amendment-center-cons.jpg http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/podcast/ Please Share!constitution,politics,government,10th,amendment,tenth,amendment,libertyNews & PoliticsGovernment & Organizations/Nationalinfo@tenthamendmentcenter.comTenth Amendment Center Getting the Supremacy Clause Wrong http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TenthAmendmentCenterPodcast/~3/SDIO8fzo7J4/ http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/30/getting-the-supremacy-clause-wrong/#comments Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:02:59 +0000 info@tenthamendmentcenter.com (Tenth Amendment Center) http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3554

by Michael Boldin

A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan have already introduced similar legislation, and potentially, 15 other states will do so in the 2010 legislative session.

But here’s something fundamentally important that NYT writer Monica Davey claims in her article:

…the Constitution’s supremacy clause ordinarily allows federal law to, in essence, trump a state law that conflicts with it…

A best, this is a highly-misleading statement.

There are two main points to make here:

1. The “supremacy clause” does not allow federal law to trump state law in all situations, or even “ordinarily” as Davey claims. It only does so when both laws are in pursuance of a power that has been delegated to the federal government by “We the People.” – in the Constitution.

2. We know that this is the case because Monica’s version of the supremacy clause was actually proposed by leading founders – and rejected. When the Constitution was being drafted, James Madison and others proposed what came to be known as the “Virginia Plan.” A major part of this plan was to give the congress a veto over state laws. It was defeated. That means, in plain English, the founders considered this idea, and said no. And Davey is irrefutably wrong in her claim.

So we know from this short lesson that the supremacy clause did not authorize the power that Davey is claiming. In reality, things are pretty much the other way around. The biggest Constitutional problems that actually exist in this country are those times when the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it by “We the People.” And that happens far more often than not.

Unfortunately, though, not enough people know this important history of the Virginia Plan, and this basic premise of the Constitution, so they’re easily swayed by patently false statements by people like Davey and the New York Times.

]]> http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/30/getting-the-supremacy-clause-wrong/feed/ Health Care,Supremacy Clause,Virginia Plan - by Michael Boldin - A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment th... by Michael Boldin A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan have already introduced similar legislation, and potentially, 15 other states will do so in the 2010 legislative session. But here’s something fundamentally important that NYT writer Monica Davey claims in her article: …the Constitution’s supremacy clause ordinarily allows federal law to, in essence, trump a state law that conflicts with it… A best, this is a highly-misleading statement. There are two main points to make here: 1. The “supremacy clause” does not allow federal law to trump state law in all situations, or even “ordinarily” as Davey claims. It only does so when both laws are in pursuance of a power that has been delegated to the federal government by “We the People.” – in the Constitution. 2. We know that this is the case because Monica’s version of the supremacy clause was actually proposed by leading founders – and rejected. When the Constitution was being drafted, James Madison and others proposed what came to be known as the “Virginia Plan.” A major part of this plan was to give the congress a veto over state laws. It was defeated. That means, in plain English, the founders considered this idea, and said no. And Davey is irrefutably wrong in her claim. So we know from this short lesson that the supremacy clause did not authorize the power that Davey is claiming. In reality, things are pretty much the other way around. The biggest Constitutional problems that actually exist in this country are those times when the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it by “We the People.” And that happens far more often than not. Unfortunately, though, not enough people know this important history of the Virginia Plan, and this basic premise of the Constitution, so they’re easily swayed by patently false statements by people like Davey and the New York Times. Tenth Amendment Center no 3:09 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/30/getting-the-supremacy-clause-wrong/ Getting the 10th Amendment Right http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TenthAmendmentCenterPodcast/~3/dZsm3vg1WUY/ http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/10/getting-the-10th-amendment-right/#comments Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:46:50 +0000 info@tenthamendmentcenter.com (Tenth Amendment Center) http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3365

by Rob Natelson

Effectively defending American federalism requires us to remember that federalism was not created by the states – nor was it created for state benefit.

Federalism was fashioned by the American people – for the benefit of individuals and of the people as a whole. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, possibly the most eminent defender of the Tenth Amendment to sit on the modern Supreme Court, put it this way:

The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE

]]> http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/10/getting-the-10th-amendment-right/feed/ 10th Amendment,Constitution,state Sovereignty - by Rob Natelson - Effectively defending American federalism requires us to remember that federalism was not created by the states – nor was it created for state benefit. - Federalism was fashioned by the American people – for the benefit of ind... by Rob Natelson Effectively defending American federalism requires us to remember that federalism was not created by the states – nor was it created for state benefit. Federalism was fashioned by the American people – for the benefit of individuals and of the people as a whole. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, possibly the most eminent defender of the Tenth Amendment to sit on the modern Supreme Court, put it this way: The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” CLICK HERE TO READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE Tenth Amendment Center no 4:57 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/10/getting-the-10th-amendment-right/ Federalism, Freedom and the Constitution http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TenthAmendmentCenterPodcast/~3/KxiFd43SW3M/ http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/02/federalism-freedom-and-the-constitution/#comments Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:41:36 +0000 info@tenthamendmentcenter.com (Tenth Amendment Center) http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3268

by Josh Eboch

Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, no single ideological camp could wield sufficient power to impose a set of beliefs on the entire country.

Which was exactly the point of our federalist system, and of the 10th Amendment. Beyond specific, enumerated federal powers, an infinite number of issues were intentionally left to the authority of the people through their state governments. And it is to the states that liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians must address all questions extending beyond the constitutional purview of federal authority.

Click Here to Read the Full Article

]]> http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/02/federalism-freedom-and-the-constitution/feed/ decentralization,Drug War,Health Care,marriage - by Josh Eboch - Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, by Josh Eboch Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, no single ideological camp could wield sufficient power to impose a set of beliefs on the entire country. Which was exactly the point of our federalist system, and of the 10th Amendment. Beyond specific, enumerated federal powers, an infinite number of issues were intentionally left to the authority of the people through their state governments. And it is to the states that liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians must address all questions extending beyond the constitutional purview of federal authority. Click Here to Read the Full Article Tenth Amendment Center no 5:54 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/02/federalism-freedom-and-the-constitution/ Nancy Pelosi: Wrong on Health Care http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TenthAmendmentCenterPodcast/~3/uenYKiJ2wic/ http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/23/nancy-pelosi-wrong-on-health-care/#comments Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:34:34 +0000 info@tenthamendmentcenter.com (Tenth Amendment Center) http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3097

by Rob Natelson - original article posted 09-17-09

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has issued a press release in which she purports to rebut those of us who have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of some health care reform plans.

Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) claims:

“The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states… or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. (bolded in original).

For several reasons, this is a highly misleading statement.

First, it fails to mention a concern expressed by many constitutional scholars, including those on the Left: Substantive due process.

“Substantive due process” is the doctrine by which the Supreme Court strikes down laws it deems unacceptably interfere with personal privacy or autonomy. Health care laws that, for example, limit one’s ability to fund and control one’s own health care could well run afoul of substantive due process rules.

Second, the statement fails to mention that, while the Supreme Court has upheld many delegations of power from Congress to executive branch agencies, the Court has affirmed repeatedly that there are limits. Some health care proposals involve wider delegations of authority than any since the New Deal’s National Reconstruction Adminisration (NRA) — which was invalidated by a unanimous Court.

Third, the Pelosi release disregards the fact that on several occasions the modern Supreme Court has struck down overreaching federal legislation, supposedly adopted under the Commerce Power. Also, on several occasions, the Court has interpreted congressional acts narrowly to avoid constitutional conflicts.

Fourth: Pelosi (or her speechwriter) clearly misstate the current Supreme Court’s test for laws under the Constitution’s Commerce Power. The statement that Congress can regulate “activities that have an effect on interstate commerce” should be that Congress can regulate “economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Non-economic activities, such as some health care decisions, would have to meet a much stricter test. This may seem to be a minor mistake, but for legal purposes it is an important one, and one that, for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, is not easily excusable.

Finally, Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) commits the mistake of failing to look at wider judicial trends. One of these trends is the long-term movement by the Supreme Court toward interpreting the Constitution according to its real meaning – the original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers.

And virtually no knowledgeable person thinks government health care is constitutional under that standard.

Rob Natelson is Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.

]]> http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/23/nancy-pelosi-wrong-on-health-care/feed/ commerce-clause,Health Care,nancy-pelosi - by Rob Natelson - original article posted 09-17-09 - Speaker Nancy Pelosi has issued a press release in which she purports to rebut those of us who have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of some health care reform plans. by Rob Natelson - original article posted 09-17-09 Speaker Nancy Pelosi has issued a press release in which she purports to rebut those of us who have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of some health care reform plans. Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) claims: "The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states... or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. (bolded in original). For several reasons, this is a highly misleading statement. First, it fails to mention a concern expressed by many constitutional scholars, including those on the Left: Substantive due process. "Substantive due process" is the doctrine by which the Supreme Court strikes down laws it deems unacceptably interfere with personal privacy or autonomy. Health care laws that, for example, limit one’s ability to fund and control one’s own health care could well run afoul of substantive due process rules. Second, the statement fails to mention that, while the Supreme Court has upheld many delegations of power from Congress to executive branch agencies, the Court has affirmed repeatedly that there are limits. Some health care proposals involve wider delegations of authority than any since the New Deal’s National Reconstruction Adminisration (NRA) -- which was invalidated by a unanimous Court. Third, the Pelosi release disregards the fact that on several occasions the modern Supreme Court has struck down overreaching federal legislation, supposedly adopted under the Commerce Power. Also, on several occasions, the Court has interpreted congressional acts narrowly to avoid constitutional conflicts. Fourth: Pelosi (or her speechwriter) clearly misstate the current Supreme Court’s test for laws under the Constitution’s Commerce Power. The statement that Congress can regulate "activities that have an effect on interstate commerce" should be that Congress can regulate "economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce." Non-economic activities, such as some health care decisions, would have to meet a much stricter test. This may seem to be a minor mistake, but for legal purposes it is an important one, and one that, for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, is not easily excusable. Finally, Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) commits the mistake of failing to look at wider judicial trends. One of these trends is the long-term movement by the Supreme Court toward interpreting the Constitution according to its real meaning – the original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers. And virtually no knowledgeable person thinks government health care is constitutional under that standard. Rob Natelson is Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution. Tenth Amendment Center no 4:26 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/23/nancy-pelosi-wrong-on-health-care/ The 10-4 Pledge for the Constitution http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TenthAmendmentCenterPodcast/~3/YDiafgZV4Ww/ http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/17/the-10-4-pledge-for-the-constitution/#comments Thu, 17 Sep 2009 07:00:18 +0000 info@tenthamendmentcenter.com (Tenth Amendment Center) http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3054

by Michael Boldin

This year, seven states have passed sovereignty resolutions under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Two states passed laws nullifying some federal firearms regulations. Thirteen states now have Medical Marijuana laws in direct opposition to federal laws. And three states are considering constitutional amendments allowing residents to effectively opt-out of any future national health care plan.

What does this have to do with September 17th, Constitution Day?

everything.

The Constitution of the United States was a revolutionary document. “Before it, no government in history had seen its duties and restrictions so clearly and carefully defined”

When it was being considered for ratification, there was strong opposition from famous American figures that included George Mason and Patrick Henry. “One major reason for this was a fear of too much power

The founding generation spent their lives toiling under a tyranny - a government without limits. When the Constitution was written, it was done to limit the power of government. It was created under the principle of popular sovereignty - that ‘We the People of the Several States’ created the government, and all powers not delegated to it, were retained.”

Depending on how you count them, the People delegated approximately 35 powers to the federal government and not included in those powers are national health care, the creation of free speech zones, federal gun regulations, the war on drugs, and more.

The Constitution is not exclusively for either the left or the right. It established rules for limiting the power of government so your liberty would have a better chance of success. The founders created a system of government where the most important and most difficult issues would be kept close to home, and that’s just the opposite of how things are today.

Over the years, wise men and women warned us that the Constitution would never enforce itself. Its high time that people start recognizing this as fact. No amount of calling or voting or litigating or hoping will get federal politicians to restrict their own power.

That’s why we at TenthAmendmentCenter.com created the 10-4 Pledge so people can find candidates for office who believe in the strict limitations on power that the Constitution stands for.

The 10-4 Pledge is a set of 10 affirmations and 10 promises for legislators and candidates. Included in the pledge is an affirmation that “All just political authority is derived from the People,” and a promise that elected officials will always vote “in favor of the Constitution of the United States. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.”

Already, several prominent candidates have affirmed these positions as early-signers of the pledge, including Randy Brogdon for Governor of Oklahoma, Adam Kokesh for US House in New Mexico, and Brandon Creighton from the Texas House of Representatives and author of HCR-50 - the Texas Sovereignty Resolution.

So whether youre on the left, or on the right, or even somewhere in the middle, the path to freedom, the path to your political goals lies not in Washington D.C. Instead, it lies in Madison, and Jefferson (City), and other state capitols around the country.

So this Constitution Day take a new pledge. Ignore and resist the federal overnment. Its as worthless as it is dangerous.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

]]> http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/17/the-10-4-pledge-for-the-constitution/feed/ 10-4 Pledge,Constitution - - by Michael Boldin - This year, seven states have passed sovereignty resolutions under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Two states passed laws nullifying some federal firearms regulations. by Michael Boldin This year, seven states have passed sovereignty resolutions under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Two states passed laws nullifying some federal firearms regulations. Thirteen states now have Medical Marijuana laws in direct opposition to federal laws. And three states are considering constitutional amendments allowing residents to effectively opt-out of any future national health care plan. What does this have to do with September 17th, Constitution Day? everything. The Constitution of the United States was a revolutionary document. "Before it, no government in history had seen its duties and restrictions so clearly and carefully defined" When it was being considered for ratification, there was strong opposition from famous American figures that included George Mason and Patrick Henry. "One major reason for this was a fear of too much power The founding generation spent their lives toiling under a tyranny - a government without limits. When the Constitution was written, it was done to limit the power of government. It was created under the principle of popular sovereignty - that 'We the People of the Several States' created the government, and all powers not delegated to it, were retained." Depending on how you count them, the People delegated approximately 35 powers to the federal government and not included in those powers are national health care, the creation of free speech zones, federal gun regulations, the war on drugs, and more. The Constitution is not exclusively for either the left or the right. It established rules for limiting the power of government so your liberty would have a better chance of success. The founders created a system of government where the most important and most difficult issues would be kept close to home, and that's just the opposite of how things are today. Over the years, wise men and women warned us that the Constitution would never enforce itself. Its high time that people start recognizing this as fact. No amount of calling or voting or litigating or hoping will get federal politicians to restrict their own power. That's why we at TenthAmendmentCenter.com created the 10-4 Pledge so people can find candidates for office who believe in the strict limitations on power that the Constitution stands for. The 10-4 Pledge is a set of 10 affirmations and 10 promises for legislators and candidates. Included in the pledge is an affirmation that "All just political authority is derived from the People," and a promise that elected officials will always vote "in favor of the Constitution of the United States. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses." Already, several prominent candidates have affirmed these positions as early-signers of the pledge, including Randy Brogdon for Governor of Oklahoma, Adam Kokesh for US House in New Mexico, and Brandon Creighton from the Texas House of Representatives and author of HCR-50 - the Texas Sovereignty Resolution. So whether youre on the left, or on the right, or even somewhere in the middle, the path to freedom, the path to your political goals lies not in Washington D.C. Instead, it lies in Madison, and Jefferson (City), and other state capitols around the country. So this Constitution Day take a new pledge. Ignore and resist the federal overnment. Its as worthless as it is dangerous. Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given. Tenth Amendment Center no 4:25 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/17/the-10-4-pledge-for-the-constitution/ Matthew Shea: Standing up for the Constitution http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TenthAmendmentCenterPodcast/~3/rIjaOU6yAyo/ http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/14/matthew-shea-standing-up-for-the-constitution/#comments Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:17:17 +0000 info@tenthamendmentcenter.com (Tenth Amendment Center) http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3030 Matthew Shea, State Representative in Washington’s 4th District discusses HJM4009 for sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, putting the federal government on notice, the alarming attempts of the federal government to take over the national guard , the fact that Congress has not followed the constitution’s requirement for a declaration of war since WWII, plans for nullification efforts in 2010, the Sheriff’s First law, how left and right can come together to support the Constitution, and more.

Mentioned in this episode:

HJM4009

Rep Shea’s Legislative Page

Bring the Guard Home

Sign up for Rep Shea’s Newsletter

Grassroots Central

State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee

Find Your WA State Legislator

]]> http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/14/matthew-shea-standing-up-for-the-constitution/feed/ HJM4009,National Guard,Nullification,Washington Sovereignty State Rep. Matthew Shea (WA-4th) "The decentralization of power, limited government, is a hallmark of our American institutions and our American system of government." State Rep. Matthew Shea (WA-4th) "The decentralization of power, limited government, is a hallmark of our American institutions and our American system of government." Tenth Amendment Center no 16:51 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/14/matthew-shea-standing-up-for-the-constitution/ Rob Natelson: A Constitutional Coup d’etat http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TenthAmendmentCenterPodcast/~3/lB_-8E0vgsY/ http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/31/rob-natelson-a-constitutional-coup-detat/#comments Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:35:05 +0000 info@tenthamendmentcenter.com (Tenth Amendment Center) http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2934
  • Add to iTunes

    • Rob Natelson, recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, and Professor of Constitutional Law, Legal History, and Advanced Constitutional Law at the University of Montana School of Law talks about how the Supreme Court allowed the Federal Government in the late 1930s to drastically change the way the US Constitution is interpreted, how the Court initially tried to hold a line against FDRs expansion of power but changed position even before the infamous court-packing scheme, how the Commerce and Taxing powers were almost turned upside down,  the Necessary and Proper clause and incidental powers, the false claim that the Supreme Court is conservative, how bad precedent leads to more bad court rulings, state elections as critical for Constitutional activists, and more.

    Editor’s Note: Professor Natelson notes one error in the podcast:  He should have given Justice Breyer’s first name as “Stephen.”

    Mentioned in this Show:

    United States v Darby Lumber

    Wickard v Filburn

    The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

    Rob’s Page at the University of Montana

    Scholarship of the Original Understanding of the Constitution

    More from Rob Natelson:

    Is ObamaCare Constitutional?

    Claiming Almost Everything is “Commerce”

    The New King George

    It’s the People’s Right!

    Podcast: Understanding Federalism

    ]]>     http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/31/rob-natelson-a-constitutional-coup-detat/feed/ Constitutional Jurisprudence,Originalism,supreme-court In this podcast, Rob Natelson, recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, talks about how the Supreme Court allowed the Federal Government in the late 1930s to drastically change the way the US Constitutio... In this podcast, Rob Natelson, recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, talks about how the Supreme Court allowed the Federal Government in the late 1930s to drastically change the way the US Constitution is interpreted, the Necessary and Proper clause and incidental powers, and more... Tenth Amendment Center no 47:57 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/31/rob-natelson-a-constitutional-coup-detat/     Why the Tenth Amendment? http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TenthAmendmentCenterPodcast/~3/Y6uVy7c_I8g/ http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/23/why-the-tenth-amendment/#comments Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:56:17 +0000 info@tenthamendmentcenter.com (Tenth Amendment Center) http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2860
  • Add to iTunes


    • by Michael Boldin

    The following was a prepared statement for the 10th Amendment Forum in Orlando, FL on 08-22-09

    First of all, thank you for allowing me a few moments to be here with you today – it’s an honor to be able to speak with you, even if it’s from the other side of the country where I am here in Los Angeles, California.

    As the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, I’m often asked – why the Tenth Amendment?  Why do we need it?  And I truly believe that’s just what people like you and I were asking back in the time when this country was founded, too.

    But, the answer isn’t complex.  It isn’t difficult.  It’s simple and it’s easy to understand. The People of the day, the Founding Generation, like so many of us today, recognized that a government of strictly limited powers is the only one that has a chance of protecting our liberty – and that’s just the kind of government that the People created when they ratified the Constitution so many years ago.

    They did this because they knew through their own life experience, that a government without limits is a tyranny.

    The 10th Amendment was ratified as an exclamation point on the Constitution – and it lays out in plain English that our federal government is to be one of limited, enumerated powers – not the nearly unlimited, unchecked one that it has become today.

    It truly is our modern line in the sand.  On one side, we have those who believe in limiting the power of politicians, and on the other are those that trust the government to do everything.

    The 10th Amendment is the safety valve that makes it clear, especially in conjunction  with the 9th, that it was The People who created the federal government to be our agent for certain enumerated purposes…….and nothing more.

    The federal government didn’t create itself - and the state governments didn’t create it either.  It was The People who created the federal government, and it is the People who are sovereign in the American system.  This couldn’t have been more clearly stated than it was in the Federalist Papers, #22. And here’s the quote:

    “The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”

    And that wasn’t Madison or Jay.  It was the man who at the time was seen as the greatest believer in centralized power, Alexander Hamilton.  So, back then, even the great centralizer recognized that power comes from the People.  And that’s the way it was at the beginning – and that’s the way it is today.

    So only when “We the People” actually regain that power over the government that is supposed to be our agent – only then will we ever see liberty and prosperity flourish in this country.

    And, I believe that the path to this is not in Washington D.C.  It’s not in asking federal politicians to let us exercise our rights, or hoping that federal judges will give us permission to exercise our rights.  But instead, the path is in Tallahassee and state capitols around the country.  Courageous State legislators – like your own Carey Baker and Scott Plakon – are calling on the Jeffersonian tradition of nullification to resist unconstitutional federal laws.

    When a state “nullifies” a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or “non-effective,” within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, it’s actually not a law as far as that state is concerned.  We see this principle being raised in opposition to national ID cards, federal gun regulations and even proposed national health care plans.

    Starting in 2007, there was a state-level resistance to the federal government that rose up in a way that this country hasn’t seen since the mid-19th century.  Approximately two dozen states simply refused to comply with federal law.  They refused to implement the Bush era Real ID act.   And guess what?  Today it’s gone without even needing congress to repeal it.

    So what’s the lesson?  Through nullification, we can effectively resist DC and whatever they try to shove down our throats.

    This year, 26 states have seen a firearms freedom act introduced, and already two states have already made them law – that’s Montana and Tennessee.

    Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect to see ten states introduce state constitutional amendments which would effectively ban a forced national health care plan – and your state of Florida is leading the way.

    There’s plenty of outrage these days, and that can be seen by the activism at town hall meetings around the country.  But think of it this way - If, instead of making demands on federal politicians who don’t listen to us anyway, all this energy was instead focused on state governments, we’d probably see 10 or 20 health nullification bills in states already.  And Obama’s health care program would be just that much closer to being dead in the water today.

    The bottom line?  As Jefferson wrote back in the Kentucky resolutions of 1798 – the people of this country are not united on a principle of unlimited submission to their general government.

    So, with that, I urge you – each and every one of you here right now – to take the ball and run with it.  When people like you say “I’m not going to wait anymore – I’m going to lead!” that’s when we’ll see this great movement in support of the constitution and your liberty really take off.

    Thank you.

    Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

    Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

    ]]>     http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/23/why-the-tenth-amendment/feed/ 10th Amendment,Nullification,sovereignty As Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky resolutions of 1798 – the people of this country are not united on a principle of unlimited submission to their general government. As Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky resolutions of 1798 – the people of this country are not united on a principle of unlimited submission to their general government. Tenth Amendment Center no 8:12 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/23/why-the-tenth-amendment/     Mark Edge: Activism in the Free State http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TenthAmendmentCenterPodcast/~3/3wkqAyYwpQU/ http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/08/mark-edge-activism-in-the-free-state/#comments Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:04:39 +0000 info@tenthamendmentcenter.com (Tenth Amendment Center) http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2728
  • Add to iTunes

    • Mark Edge, co-host of the syndicated radio show Free Talk Live, joins us to talk about the Free State Project in New Hampshire as decentralization in practice, moving towards smaller government on a state level, spreading liberty around the country by example, the insanity of violent response to activists by the federal government, the people of New Hampshire as having a streak of individualism and resistance to government encroachments, the state legislature in New Hampshire, liberty-loving lobbyists, the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, Free Talk Live’s growing syndication, and more.

    Mentioned in this Show:

    Free State Project

    Free Talk Live

    Ridley Report

    Free Keene

    New Hampshire Liberty Alliance

    ]]>     http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/08/mark-edge-activism-in-the-free-state/feed/ Activism,Free State Project,Free Talk Live,new-hampshire Mark Edge, co-host of the syndicated radio show Free Talk Live, joins us to talk about the Free State Project in New Hampshire as decentralization in practice, moving towards smaller government on a state level, Mark Edge, co-host of the syndicated radio show Free Talk Live, joins us to talk about the Free State Project in New Hampshire as decentralization in practice, moving towards smaller government on a state level, spreading liberty around the country by example, and more... Tenth Amendment Center no 25:29 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/08/mark-edge-activism-in-the-free-state/     Thomas J. DiLorenzo: Nullification http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TenthAmendmentCenterPodcast/~3/3W6kizzoYHE/ http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/21/thomas-j-dilorenzo-nullification/#comments Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:15:05 +0000 info@tenthamendmentcenter.com (Tenth Amendment Center) http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2487
  • Add to iTunes

    • Thomas J. DiLorenzo, published author and senior fellow at the Mises Institute, discusses the principle of nullification as a devolution of power away from the central government into the hands of the state or the people, Thomas Jefferson and the Kentucky Resolves as resistance to the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, ways nullification was put into practice all across the Union in the early days of the Republic, Andrew Jackson and resistance to the bank of the United States, the “Tariff of Abominations,” nullification of the fugitive slave act,  the slander of racism that proponents of big government often throw out at supporters of decentralization, secession as the ultimate brake on government,  the power and control of the IRS and the Federal Reserve, the Second Vermont Republic, and the progression of dictatorial powers through the Bush and Obama administrations.

    Mentioned in this Show:

    Hamilton’s Curse

    Nullification, A Constitutional History

    The Real Lincoln

    How Capitalism Saved America

    Mises.org

    LewRockwell.com

    Kentucky Resolutions

    Virginia Resolution

    Second Vermont Republic

    Free State Project

    ]]>     http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/21/thomas-j-dilorenzo-nullification/feed/ Activism,Founding Fathers,Nullification Thomas J. DiLorenzo, published author and senior fellow at the Mises Institute, discusses the principle of nullification as a devolution of power away from the central government into the hands of the state or the people, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, published author and senior fellow at the Mises Institute, discusses the principle of nullification as a devolution of power away from the central government into the hands of the state or the people, Thomas Jefferson and the Kentucky Resolves as resistance to the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, ways nullification was put into practice all across the Union in the early days of the Republic and more... Tenth Amendment Center no 21:25 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/21/thomas-j-dilorenzo-nullification/     Tenth Amendment CenternonadultDiscussions applying the 10th Amendment and the constitution to historical issues and the most pressing concerns of today.