The Principles of '98

Petraeus' Replacement Pledges to Request Slower Afghanistan Drawdown if Conditions Deteriorate

2011-06-29T12:47:00.000-07:00

Lt. Gen. John Allen, the Marine who will most likely replace Gen. David Petraeus as the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, has pledged to request a slower drawdown of U.S. troops if he deems that conditions are deteriorating.

"Mmm, yeah, about that drawdown..
I'm probably going to have to go ahead and
ask you to stay a few more years. Mmmkay?"
"

Hmmm..If I were a gambling man, I'd bet that he will make that request before September of next year. I could be wrong, of course.

But even if I am wrong, and 33,000 U.S. troops actually are withdrawn before the end of 2012, we'll still have about 68,000 American troops and 20,000 private security contractor personnel who work for the Department of Defense over there.

So any hope you might have had that the end of America's longest war could maybe be somewhere in sight -- we'll, just forget about that. War is the new normal, silly.

Obama Blusters, Brewer Begs. When will Someone Grow a Spine?

2011-06-08T10:40:00.000-07:00

by Derek J. Sheriff and Bernie LaForest

“I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” So said presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, at a 2007 campaign event in Nashua, NH. And although proponents of medical marijuana later had reason to doubt him after his DEA agents raided a California dispensary, Attorney General Eric Holder soon reassured everyone that there would be change.

After a press conference held by Holder that took place shortly after the president’s inauguration, many celebrated what they interpreted as the fulfilment of his earlier promise that under his administration, the Justice Department would no longer raid medical marijuana dispensaries that were established legally under state law.

But was any such a promise in fact ever made? If one examines Obama’s campaign promises regarding medical marijuana and listens carefully to the answer Eric Holder gave at the press conference mentioned above, it’s possible to conclude that no protection or immunity was ever promised for organizations or individuals that cultivate or distribute medical marijuana in any state for any reason. Here’s what was actually said at the press conference that got so much attention.

A reporter made an observation and asked Holder a question about medical marijuana, saying:

“Right after the inauguration there were some raids on California medical marijuana dispensaries. Was that a deliberate decision by the Justice Department..do you expect those raids to continue?”

Holder responded to the question by saying:

“No..”, but then suddenly, before he could continue, Holder was interrupted by the same reporter, who happened to have microphone trouble at that same moment, making it almost impossible to hear what he said. One can make out the word “campaign”, but that’s about it. In any case, after the interruption, Holder continued. But his response became much more ambiguous. He said:

“What the president said during the campaign, you’ll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we’ll be doing in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. What he said during the campaign is now American policy.”

Just what did Obama say during the campaign? While never promising voters safety from federal raids, arrest or prosecution, Candidate Obama made numerous statements that he did not believe raiding medical marijuana users should or would be a top priority of the Justice Department under his administration. In fact, he put forth the following statement during a July of 2007 town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire: ”The Justice Department going after sick individuals using [marijuana] as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense.”

In a statement made during a November of 2007 town hall meeting in Iowa he seems to support the use of medical marijuana as a means of prescribed pain relief.

“My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that’s something I’m open to because there’s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain. But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.”

While relaying these assurances during the campaign, they are certainly not reflected in the Justice Department’s policies these days, at least when it comes to dispensaries. It seems in fact the the DOJ has taken a more direct approach, through it’s US Attorneys.

Threatening Letters

Earlier this month Governor Chafee of Rhode Island received an unsolicited letter from U.S. Attorney Peter Neronha. The letter made it clear that the Justice Department still considers marijuana cultivation and distribution to be a violation of federal law, even if done in accordance with state laws in places where medical marijuana is permitted. The letter lists potential actions the Justice Department might consider in reaction to what it deems to be violations of federal drug laws, including criminal prosecution of those involved in the cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana.

Other states that have received similar letters include Washington, California, Colorado, Vermont and Arizona. And while some states, like Vermont, are proceeding with legislation to legalize the medicinal use of medical marijuana anyway, other states seem to have been deterred. Washington’s Governor Christine Gregoire, for example, vetoed most sections of S.B. 5073, which would have licensed dispensaries and protected patients from arrest. In other states, such as Arizona, where a law allowing medical marijuana has already passed, the implementation of certain measures now mandated by state law, such as the licensing of dispensaries, have been put on hold, pending the outcome of a federal court case.

Arizona’s Attorney General, Tom Horne, filed a lawsuit in federal court shortly after Department of Health Services Director, Will Humble, received a letter from U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, warning him that:

“Compliance with Arizona laws and regulations does not provide a safe harbor, nor immunity from federal prosecution.” And that, “The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona (“the USAO”) will continue to vigorously prosecute individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing, distribution and marketing activity involving marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law.” [Emphasis added]

The complaint, filed by the Arizona AG names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke as defendants and seeks a declaratory judgment, in order to resolve competing state and federal pressures. But even if the lawsuit is a sincere effort to obtain clarification and is not a mere pretext to delay the implementation of the medical marijuana law, is it really worth the delay and expense?

Enough is Enough

Both Governor Brewer and the Attorney General could save Arizonans a lot of time and money by admitting that everyone knows what the outcome will be already. The federal judiciary will claim what it has been claiming for decades: That federal law always trumps state law because of the “supremacy clause”. This has almost always been the court’s opinion, regardless of how deliberate, palpable or dangerous a violation of the Constitution the federal “law” in question might be.

For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has engaged in naked judicial usurpation of the states’ reserved powers, by declaring that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate or ban a plant that is cultivated, distributed and consumed, all within a state’s boundaries. Even if this plant never leaves Arizona, the Supreme Court says Congress has the authority to outlaw it because of the Constitution’s “commerce clause”.

This is a completely perverted interpretation of the “commerce clause”, of course. After all, the “commerce clause” simply states thatCongress shall have power, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. But what can one expect from a group of activist judges that one blogger described as nine unelected and unaccountable bureaucratic central planners who detest the limits of the Constitution?

The fact is that despite decades of case law, the federal government has no genuine constitutional authority to regulate marijuana, medical or otherwise, that is never transported across state lines for commercial purposes. The President knows it; the Attorney General knows it; Governor Brewer knows it, and those of us who know anything about the Constitution’s original meaning and intent know it. And they know we know it!

Isn’t it time that Governors and state Attorneys General stopped wasting our precious time and money playing these silly legal games, grow a spine, and actually fulfill the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment? If the people of a state decide in their sovereign capacity that marijuana should be legal, for any reason, or no particular reason at all, then their representatives in state government need to tell the folks in Washington, D.C., in no uncertain terms, that they have no say in the matter.

This is the system of vertical checks and balances that the Constitution, as it was understood by those who ratified it, established. So when it comes to decisions that the Constitution clearly leaves to the states or to the people, the time is long overdue for those who claim to be our public servants on the state level, to quit begging Washington, D.C. for permission and to start doing a little more checking and balancing already!

Bernie LaForest is the Outreach Director for the Wisconsin Tenth Amendment Center.

Derek Sheriff [send him email] is a research analyst for the Tenth Amendment Center. His articles have appeared in various publications, and he writes regularly for the Center on issues related to state sovereignty and nullification. His blog and podcast “Principles of ‘98″ can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com. View his Tenth Amendment Center blog archives here, and his article archives here.

Nullification: The Movie!

2011-06-05T10:47:00.000-07:00

The Tenth Amendment Center reported the following on its blog:

This yet to be released documentary from the Foundation for a Free Society http://www.myfreesociety.comand the Tenth Amendment Center http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com features Thomas Woods, Michael Boldin, Debra Medina, Stewart Rhodes, Sheriff Richard Mack, Charles Goyette, Kevin Gutzman, Robert Scott Bell, Mike Adams, Jason Rink, John Bush, Bryce Shonka, Mike Maharrey, and others. Song “The Message of Freedom”" by Jordan Page

The Untold History of Nullification: Resisting Slavery

2011-03-31T15:41:00.000-07:00

by Derek Sheriff

*Editors Note* This articles was featured at The Tenth Amendment Center's website last year on February 10, 2010

Last December, when Tennessee Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mount Juliet, said she would introduce legislation which would declare null and void any federal law the state deems unconstitutional, some people were horrified. Rep. Lynn was specifically targeting the health-care reform legislation that was pending at that time. But the reaction that many people had to her language was not an expression of their support for Obamacare.

Too many Americans hear the terms “states’ rights” or the word “nullification” and immediately think of racial prejudice, Jim Crow laws and school segregation. Honestly, if all I had to rely on was what I remember being taught in public school, I would probably tell you the history of it all went like this:

The theory of nullification was first invented in the 1800s’ by advocates of slavery. They used nullification of tarrifs as a test run in the 1820s. Of course, what they really had in mind was maintaining the institution of slavery against any possible attempt by the federal government to abolish it. Then America fought the Civil War in order to end slavery, but the ideas of states’ rights and nullification were later revived in the 1950s’ by belligerent white southerners in an attempt to block the racial integration of schools. The Civil Rights Movement started and the feds had to step in and force the southern states to treat everyone equally. THE END.

That’s a rough, abbreviated version of the narrative that was handed to me, but it gives you an idea of what many Americans think they know about states’ rights and nullification. Fortunately, thanks to people like Tom Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, and many others, I know today that this was a gross misrepresentation of theclassical liberal states’ rights tradition. Then again, (and it’s not my intention to be prideful here), I’m not like most Americans. And If you’re reading this, you probably aren’t either.

Civic Illiteracy

In 1798, Jefferson and Madison articulated the concepts of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which were passed in response to to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts. But the ideas which support nullification and interposition were actually expressed earlier during the ratifying convention of Virginia by the Federalists themselves!

Given the fact, however, that most Americans cannot even correctly name all three branches of our federal government, it’s probably a safe bet that they have never heard of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions or the fact that nullification was used to assist runaway slaves.

So should it really come as any surprise that many people in Tennessee recoiled in horror at Rep. Susan Lynn’s comments about nullification? Rep. Mike Turner of Tennessee’s 51st District responded with a sarcastic and condescending comment that probably expressed the sentiment of many Tennessee’s left-liberal elites:

“Susan Lynn is yearning for times gone by,” Turner said. “Maybe we could put the poor people back to sharecropping and slavery and let the people up at the big house have all the nice things. We’ve already had that fight about states’ rights.”

Lynn responded to Turner’s comment by saying:

“I can’t even imagine that’s a serious comment.”

Rep. Turner’s comments resemble some of the incredibly ignorant and / or vicious comments directed against today’s advocates of nullification that frequently appear in the bologoshpere. One particular blogpost I stumbled upon really embodies the either extremely ignorant or wholly deceptive attempt to associate today’s proponents of states’ rights and nullification with segregationists, white supremacists and domestic terrorists:

“Why is it that the extremist teabaggers are not called traitors even though they are basically calling for an overthrow of the democratically elected U.S. government? There latest stunt should seal it. They are calling for a long rejected theory called Nullification, and at least one treasonous..blogger and teabagger is pushing it.”

The Compromise of 1850 and How Abolitionists Used Nullification

In 1850, Congress compromised in order to hold the Union together against the divisive issue of slavery. Since the preservation of the Union (Northern control of the South’s economy), rather than the abolition of slavery was foremost in the minds of influential Republican bankers, manufacturers and heads of corporations, this compromise made perfect sense.

Part of this compromise was the passage of more stringent fugitive slave legislation that compelled citizens of all states to assist federal marshals and their deputies with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves and 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. The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for suspected slaves, and made their testimony non-admissible in court. The written testimony of the alleged slave’s master, on the other hand, which could be presented to the court by slave hunters, was given preferential treatment.

As would be expected, this new legislation outraged abolitionists, but also angered many citizens who were previously more apathetic. In 1851, 26 people in Syracuse, New York were arrested, charged and tried for freeing a runaway slave named William Henry (aka Jerry) who had been arrested under the Fugitive Slave Act. Among the 26 people tried was a U.S. Senator and the former Governor of New York! In an act of jury nullification, the trial resulted in only one conviction. “Jerry” was hidden in Syracuse for several days until he could safely escape into Canada.

The government of Wisconsin went even further and in 1854 officially declared the Fugitive Slave Act to be unconstitutional. The events that lead up to this monumental decision, which is a milestone in the history of the states’ rights tradition, is one of the best stories most Americans have never heard.

In 2006, H. Robert Baker, assistant professor of legal and constitutional history at Georgia State University wrote a book called, “The Rescue of Joshua Glover: A Fugitive Slave, the Constitution, and the Coming of the Civil War“. In its review of the book, The Journal of American History wrote:

“Terribly conflicted about race, Americans struggled mightily with a revolutionary heritage that sanctified liberty but also brooked compromise with slavery. Nevertheless, as The Rescue of Joshua Glover demonstrates, they maintained the principle that the people themselves were the last defenders of constitutional liberty…”

Joshua Glover was a slave in Missouri who managed to escape from his master. In 1854, with the help of the Underground Railroad, he made his way north, all the way to Wisconsin. There he found work at a mill in Racine, a community in which anti-slavery sentiment ran high. Unfortunately for Glover, his former master, B.S. Garland eventually managed to find out where Glover had taken up residence.

Accompanied by two US Marshals, the three of them took Glover by surprise. In spite of his resistance, Glover was subdued with a club and handcuffed. Thrown into a wagon, he was surreptitiously transported to Milwaukee, where he was thrown in jail. Glover’s abduction was discovered somehow or another, however, and in no time one hundred or so men landed by boat in Milwaukee.

The men marched towards the courthouse, which was adjacent to the jail, and crowds of people began to join their ranks or follow along as spectators. An abolitionist named Sherman Booth, who published a local daily newspaper there called the “Free Soil Democrat” rallied the supporters of the citizen army shouting:

“All freemen who are opposed to being made slaves or slave-catchers turn out to a meeting in the courthouse square at 2 o’clock!”

When the meeting at the courthouse adjourned, those who had assembled eventually resolved that Joshua Glover was entitled to at least two things: A writ of habeas corpus and a trial by jury. A local judge concurred and delivered the writ to the US Marshals at the jail. As might be expected, the federal officers rejected the writ as invalid. After all, federal law trumps state judicial authority, does it not?

The assembly of citizens from Racine and Milwaukee must have decided that such was not the case in this instance. In fearless defiance, they broke down the doors of the jail and freed Joshua Glover. In an act that probably would have filled Sheriff Mack with joy, had he been there, the Racine County Sheriff arrested Glover’s former slave master and the two US Marshals who had kidnapped him. They were charged with assault and put jail. In the meantime, the Underground Railroad assisted Joshua Glover as he crossed the border into Canada.

Although Glover escaped to freedom, it was not without a price. Glover’s former master, B.S. Garland was released on a writ of habeas corpus and in the long run would sue Sherman Booth, turning him financially upside down.

In the short run, Booth and two other men were arrested and indicted by a grand jury. While Booth maintained that he had never incited the crowd to liberate Glover or that had helped Glover escape in any way, he did not mince words either. Speaking in his own defense in front of the US Commissioner, he proclaimed:

“..I sympathize with the rescuers of Glover and rejoice at his escape. I rejoice that, in the first attempt of the slave-hunters to convert our jail into a slave-pen and our citizens into slave-catchers, they have signally failed, and that it has been decided by the spontaneous uprising and sovereign voice of the people, that no human being can be dragged into bondage from Milwaukee.”

According to his account of these events, Henry E. Legler wrote in 1898:

“Byron Paine made an argument in behalf of Booth that attracted attention all over the country. It was printed in pamphlet form and circulated on the streets of Boston by the thousands. Charles Sumner and Wendell Phillips wrote the author letters of hearty approval and commended his force of logic and able presentation of argument. This pamphlet is now excessively rare; but half a dozen copies are now known to exist.”

Judge Smith of the Wisconsin Supreme Court made the following declaration, that ought to inspire and motivate champions of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty today. Speaking not only for Wisconsin, but of all the states, he said that they would never accept the idea that:

“..an officer of the United States, armed with process to arrest a fugitive from service, is clothed with entire immunity from state authority; to commit whatever crime or outrage against the laws of the state; that their own high prerogative writ of habeas corpus shall be annulled, their authority defied, their officers resisted, the process of their own courts contemned, their territory invaded by federal force, the houses of their citizens searched, the sanctuary or their homes invaded, their streets and public places made the scenes of tumultuous and armed violence, and state sovereignty succumb–paralyzed and aghast–before the process of an officer unknown to the constitution and irresponsible to its sanctions. At least, such shall not become the degradation of Wisconsin, without meeting as stern remonstrance and resistance as I may be able to interpose, so long as her people impose upon me the duty of guarding their rights and liberties, and maintaining the dignity and sovereignty of their state.”

The United States Supreme court eventually reversed the action of the Wisconsin’s courts. Booth and one other man accused of helping to liberate Joshua Glover were found guilty. Both spent months in jail in addition to having to pay stiff fines. This was the price that was paid for Joshua Glover’s freedom.

Wisconsin Historical Marker

Rather than being deterred, however, Wisconsin, along with several other states, such as Connecticut (1854), Rhode Island (1854), Massachusetts (1855), Michigan (1855), Maine (1855 and 1857), and Kansas (1858) all went on to pass even more personal liberty legislation designed to neutralize federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

It was no coincidence that the 1859 statement of the Wisconsin Supreme Court borrowed words directly from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:

“Resolved, That the government formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
Resolved, that the principle and construction contended for by the party which now rules in the councils of the nation, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infractions; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”

The End, or Just the Beginning?

Signpost up ahead

Few Americans have ever heard the heroic story of how the people of Wisconson and several other states stood up to the federal government’s tyrannical, unconstitutional slave laws with the help of their elected state officials.

Today state sovereignty and the Principles of 1798 are beinginvoked again, for a variety of reasons, just as they were invoked for a variety of reasons all throughout American history, in spite of what you may have been taught or are being told today.

States legislatures all over the Union today are standing up and re-asserting their sovereignty, which is guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. They are proposing and passing legislation which would nullify a whole host of unconstitutional federal laws including: The federally mandated national “REAL ID” card, restrictions on the use of Medical Marijuana, unconstitutional deployments of State National Guard units, federally mandated health insurance, unconstitutional regulations of state manufactured firearms and much more…

It is tragic that left-liberals have seemingly abandoned the classical liberal states’ rights tradition in favor of nationalism and the centralization of power. It is also shameful that they have made a concerted effort to associate nullification with slavery in the minds of average Americans. As Josh Eboch begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting, State Chapter Coordinator for theVirginia Tenth Amendment Center observes:

“Of course, even though activists on the left supported nullification for Real ID and also for medical marijuana, those calling for state sovereignty with regard to health care will have to deal with the standard cries of racism and references to the Jim Crow…But just because nullification was used [unsuccessfully] in the past to deny rights to certain groups doesn’t mean it can’t be used to regain our rights today. In the end, ‘for desperate people whose freedoms are being systematically usurped by all three federal branches and both political parties, nullification may be the key to restoring our republic’.”

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

Answering Bill O'Reilly's Question with Better Questions

2011-03-27T18:52:00.000-07:00

In his recent article, A noble fight in Libya, Bill O'Reilly asked Ron Paul the following question:

“Would you be comfortable, congressman, watching thousands of human beings being slaughtered by a terrorist dictator when you know that your country had the power to prevent it?”

I have a few questions for Bill O'Reilly:

1. Were you comfortable when $470 million in weapons were sold to terrorist dictator Gadhafi's military in 2009 by our European allies? How about the $46 million in U.S. "defense" sales approved by the Bush administration in 2008? Or the $41 million the year before that?

AP reports that, "The $46 million included $1 million in explosives and incendiary agents, and Toner said the State Department approved shipments of blasting cartridges used in oil exploration. Other U.S. officials cited concerns that such explosive agents could be converted to crude battlefield munitions."

How comfortable would you be if another Lockerbie style bombing occurs that can be attributed to Gadhafi and it’s discovered that these U.S. State Department approved explosives were used in the attack?

When these deals were approved, were you busy complaining that the Bush administration and other western leaders were normalizing relations with a terrorist dictator, or were you congratulating them for offering Gadhafi such great incentives to abandon his alleged nuclear program? This is not a rhetorical question. I honestly don’t know. Maybe you can shed some light on these historical events.

What other dictatorships is Washington, DC presently sending money and arms to? How should the U.S. deal with them when they start slaughtering their people or invading neighboring countries? Maybe an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure.

2. Are you comfortable knowing that the federal government has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on it’s war in Libya?

What the total cost of the war will be when it’s all over can’t be predicted any more than the number of innocent lives that may or may not be saved by it can be. It will surely be in the billions of dollars. I know a price tag should not be placed on saving the lives of innocent people, which is supposedly why Obomb’em ordered U.S. forces to create the no-fly zone and launch cruise missiles like crazy. But if it’s really all about preventing the death of innocent civilians ...

Consider the fact that somewhere between 1 and 1.5 million people die from malaria every year. If this intervention is about preventing the deaths of innocent people in Africa, there’s arguably a much easier way to save a lot more lives for every dollar spent than by using military force.

Mosquito nets treated with insecticides cost about $10 each and the cost of treatment for a single bout of malaria is between 8 and 30 cents. So, if the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Libya so far is to prevent innocent civilian deaths, it can certainly be argued that far more lives could be saved using that money to fight malaria, rather than fighting Gadhafi.

How many lives could be saved by using the money spent in Libya to purchase and distribute these nets to Africans in many countries south of Libya, free of charge? Trials have shown that mosquito nets treated with insecticides can reduce deaths in children by one fifth and episodes of malaria by half.

So without even taking into consideration the “collateral damage”, which is always part of “humanitarian” air wars, you do the math. My guess is that inexpensive mosquito nets have the potential to prevent far more innocent deaths than high priced fighter jets and cruise missiles ever could.

On the other hand, distributing mosquito nets and malaria medications to needy folks in sub-Saharan Africa doesn't involve big explosions or drama that includes an evil dictator everyone loves to hate. You know... the things that keep everyone glued to their TV set and makes those otherwise boring news stories really exciting and entertaining!

Maybe the question that nobody wants to ask, but really needs to be asked is this:

How many lives could be saved if the noble, generous Americans you speak of hadn't been robbed of their money (this includes those alive today and those yet to be born), to finance this and other “humanitarian” wars?” Surely individual Americans could have put that money to better use by giving it away to the private charities that exist solely for the purpose of saving lives.

Which organization do you imagine would find a way to stretch each dollar given to them and use it more wisely? The Pentagon, or just about any private humanitarian relief organization?

I urge you to open your eyes and consider not only the costs of this war which are easily seen, but the hidden costs of all wars, which usually remain unseen.

3. While we’re on the subject of saving innocent human lives... Were you comfortable with the brutal sanctions against Iraq, which lasted for over a decade and contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children? You wrote in your article:

“This is not a complicated issue. If America is indeed a noble country, it should act to save lives when it can. That doesn’t mean getting bogged down in such quagmires as Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. But when quick, decisive action can defeat evil, it should be taken.”

Did you, by any chance, support lifting the sanctions mentioned above in order to save innocent lives of Iraqi children? Or did you complain that the sanctions weren't being enforced strictly enough?

Would you consider those sanctions to have been a quick and decisive measure? Did they do anything to defeat the Saddam’s evil regime?

Sanctions almost never do anything to undermine or weaken dictatorial regimes. Instead, they almost always hurt innocent civilians and actually help keep dictators in power by destroying their political opposition.

4. Last question. Right now the U.S. government borrows 43 cents out of every dollar it spends. The Federal Reserve has facilitated this borrowing and these days it actually purchases U.S. Treasury bonds with money it creates out of thin air. Since these deceptive, destructive methods of financing the government's programs will surely have long term negative consequences for the value of the dollar and American prosperity in general...

Would you be comfortable with having the American people actually pay for all future military interventions, including the one in Libya, in their lifetime?

This would require a big change from the way Americans are used to doing war. It would mean much higher, more noticeable taxes right now, rather than "kicking the can down the road" through hidden taxes like inflation and /or having future generations shoulder even higher taxes, just so they can service the interest on the national debt we continue to create.

Think carefully before you answer, and be sure to keep this in mind. As long as Americans of voting age don’t actually have to pay for the wars authorized by their federal government out of their own pockets (in the form of higher taxes), most of them will never even bother asking the kinds of questions I’ve just asked you to answer.

Nullification: 3, Real ID: 0

2011-03-21T06:24:00.000-07:00

by Derek Sheriff

In spite of the fact that the Constitution was recently read in its entirety (minus a few sections and amendments), for the first time in the history of the House, several senior Republicans must have either been absent or just weren’t paying attention to what they were hearing. (No) Surprise!

Less than three months after the historic reading, they were back to business as usual — the business of usurping more power from the states and consolidating it in Washington, DC. House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, demanding she not extend the May 11 deadline for the states to comply with the federal Real ID Act.

In spite of the hysterical warning contained in their letter, the Obama administration wisely decided to do for a third time what the Bush administration was forced to do the first time when many state governments simply refused to comply with the act’s unconstitutional requirements — extend the deadline again.

Anticipating that the Obama administration would again back down to avoid conflict with the states, the letter asserted that the recent arrest of a terrorist suspect in Texas, “..underscores the importance of the immediate implementation of REAL ID. Any further extension of REAL ID threatens the security of the United States. We cannot understand how you could even contemplate a further delay – a delay that places American lives at risk.”

Homeland Hypocrisy
The real but greatly exaggerated danger of terrorism is a tried and true method of scaring Americans into giving the federal government a free pass to circumvent the Constitution. But how ironic that this time, one of the GOP chairmen who sent this letter was none other than Homeland Security Chairman Peter King! If you’ve heard how King spent decades raising money for the US-based Irish Northern Aid Committee (NORAID) and speaking at their events, you’ll understand.

NORAID, the US Justice department long suspected, was merely an arm of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), and both British and American intelligence reports seem to support that suspicion. In a recent article about King and his involvement with NORAID, investigative journalist William N. Grigg brought to many people’s attention what Ed Maloney, well known for his coverage of the PIRA, wrote in the New York Sun back in 2005:

“During his visits to Ireland, Mr. King would often stay with well-known leaders of the IRA, and he socialized in IRA drinking haunts. At one of such clubs, the Felons, membership was limited to IRA veterans who had served time in jail.”

So the King who demands that Real ID be shoved down our throats to supposedly protect us from Islamist terrorists, is the same King who raised funds for NORAID, which almost certainly went to support another terrorist organization that murdered Americans abroad. The 1983 bombing of Harrods department store in London, was carried out by the PIRA and killed six people and injured 90 others. Among the dead was a 28-year old American named Kenneth Salvesan. And among the injured was another American named Mark McDonald, whose wounds were very severe. Margaret Thatcher wrote to Ronald Reagan immediately after the bombing to demand that he crack down on NORAID, the organization that King supported for so long.

Why States Must Continue to Nullify the Federal Real ID Act
Besides the hypocrisy that usually accompanies homeland security smoke and mirrors, is the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to set standards for state driver’s licenses and ID cards. Of course today’s state issued licenses and ID cards didn’t exist when the Constitution was drafted, but both before and after its ratification, the states had the authority to create such documents, since they retained all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution that were not prohibited to them by it (see 10th Amendment). If members of Congress are truly convinced that federal standards for state issued ID cards are necessary for the security of the United States, then they should propose a constitutional amendment. Of course, the vast majority of the people who make up our so called “federal” government have long behaved as if they’d never heard of the Constitution, or what Jefferson called it’s cornerstone — the 10th Amendment.

And what about the enormous costs associated with Real ID? While it’s true these outrageously expensive mandates have again reared their ugly head right at a time when many states face a severe budget crisis (the primary reason given by DHS for the most recent extension). Even if big budget surpluses were the norm among states these days, it would be no excuse for state governments to shirk their duty by submiting to an act of usurpation like Real ID. In spite of the decision many House Republicans have made to indulge in situational constitutionalism (the obnoxious habit of supporting the Constitution only when it is likely to result in a policy outcome one happens to favor), a far greater number of Republicans and Democrats in state governments across the country have chosen a more honorable path — that of state interposition and nullification.

Given that Real ID is both an expensive and unconstitutional act thatthreatens privacy, freedom and federalism, 25 states over the last several years have, according to the Tenth Amendment Center’s legislative tracking page:

“..passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing to implement the Bush-era law..While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been ‘delayed’ numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void.”

James Madison, the chief author of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wrote in 1798 that when the federal government exercises powers not authorized by the Constitution, the states, “..are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

Many state officials have faithfully carried out Madison’s admonition by rendering the Real ID Act null, void and without force within their state’s boundaries. Now it’s up to us, the people of the several states, to remind them often, between now and the next deadline in January of 2013, that they need to keep it that way.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

Are All Governments Socialist?

2011-03-08T13:57:00.000-08:00

*NOTE* - This entry was originally featured on Saturday, March 5th, 2011 at the Tenth Amendment Center

by Derek Sheriff

Yuri N. Maltsev worked as an economist on Mikhail Gorbachev’s economic reform team before defecting to the United States. Thankfully, he managed to immigrate to the United States without stopping in Siberia. Today he teaches economics at Carthage College and is a senior fellow of the Mises Institute. In a recent speech he gave in Florida, which was part of The Mises Circle in Naples, the former Soviet economist explained to the audience that in truth, allgovernments are socialist. Yes, that’s right…When it comes to governments, it’s only a question of the quantity of their socialist content.

Shortly after the midterm elections last year, columnist Gene DeNardo made a similar point in an article that appeared at NolanChart.com

“Believing that certain forms of the state or certain forms of governing are socialist and certain forms are ‘free’ is erroneous and a bit ridiculous. All governing states are socialist by nature. The state by definition derives its control and power to enforce its monopoly by confiscating and redistributing the resources of its populace. It cannot survive without acting in this manner. While it may not directly control the ‘means of production’, to ensure its survival and growth it will control the necessary proportion of the product of those same productive means.
Attempting to try to ‘unsocialize’ the state is futile. One political party referring to the other as ‘socialist’ is hysterical. All politics that exist within the state monopoly are only variations on the question of who the wealth will come from and where it will go. This has always been the nature of the state.”

But can a government exist that does not confiscate and redistribute the resources of its populace? In principle, I tend to think so, just as there might exist certain forms of voluntary socialism that redistribute without confiscation. In the broadest sense, governments are simply authorities that establish and maintain order, and (hopefully) justice, according to a system of law. If such a government can perform these functions with the unanimous consent of the governed and without redistributing wealth, then it would qualify as a non-socialist government, in my humble opinion.

But unless you’re are dealing with such a non-coercive government that does not redistribute wealth, you are dealing with a socialist government. You may be dealing with a big “S” socialist government that has a complete monopoly over vast territories, spanning multiple time zones, or you may be dealing with a small “s” socialist government in your state, county, city or town. But because almost all governments are based on socialism, Maltsev asserts that they can’t be reformed, “fixed” or ever made to run efficiently the way a business can in the private (voluntary), sector. The closest we’ll ever get to subjecting governments to market discipline, is by containing them, keeping them weak and dividing them up into as many competing jurisdictions as possible.

If we fail to do so and allow the consolidation of power that Jefferson, Madison and other founders feared, the result can be a dystopian nightmare, like the one Yuri Maltsev managed to escape from. On the other hand, if we succeed in doing so, we may force socialist governments in the U.S. to compete with each other, resulting in a greater number of freer and more prosperous political societies. Such an arrangement is called federalism, and I believe that it would naturally tend to prevent big “S” socialism from becoming a permanent feature of the federal government and gradually diminish small “s” socialism among the several states, as long as Americans remain free to move from one state to another.

Listening to Yuri N. Maltsev’s speech validated my belief that the federal government cannot be “fixed”. It also reinforced my conviction that Americans in one state shouldn’t be in the business of arguing with people of other states, about just how much socialism they ought to embrace or reject. Every state has a different level of acceptable socialism, but they are all socialist to one degree or another.

Now I’m not saying Americans residing in different states shouldn’t dialog with each other or coordinate their efforts when it’s mutually advantageous. But when more populous states choose to use their disproportionate influence in Congress or their greater number of electoral votes to elect a president who they know will usurp the authority of the states and micromanage their affairs, it violates the Constitution and is a recipe for political strife and disunion.

The Constitution authorizes a federal government of strictly limited powers, which are to be exercised for a few, carefully defined purposes. And both elected representatives and the people they are supposed to represent, need to be reminded that the Constitution is a compact among the states, which are supposed to function as fifty competing laboratories of liberty, as it were.

Derek Sheriff [send him email] is a research analyst for the Tenth Amendment Center. His articles have appeared in various publications, and he writes regularly for the Center on issues related to state sovereignty and nullification. His blog and podcast “Principles of ‘98″ can be found at www.ThePrinciplesOf98.Com. View his Tenth Amendment Center blog archives here, and his article archives here.

The TSA, Interposition and the Spirit of 1809

2011-03-06T03:46:00.000-08:00

*NOTE* This article was featured by the Tenth Amendment Center on Sunday, November 28th, 2010

by Derek Sheriff

From San Francisco to New York, if you’re paying attention these days, you’d almost think that local government officials across this great country of ours had been sent a copies of Tom Woods’ new book, or were devoting some of their spare time to a quick study of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798.

The Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were written, of course, by the man who is usually referred to as the “Father of our Constitution”. These resolutions assert:

“..that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact [the US Constitution], the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil…”

So what does that have to do with the TSA?

LOCAL INTERPOSITION

The Washington Times recently quoted New York City Council member David G. Greenfield, who is proposing a city-wide ban on the TSA’s new x-ray scanners. “Our Constitution encourages local governments to stand up when the federal government goes too far..These naked X-ray machines..constitute an unreasonable search,” which violates the Fourth Amendment, he said.

Meanwhile in California, current chief deputy DA and incoming DA of San Mateo County, Steve Wagstaffe, has stated that he will prosecute TSA employees if it can be proven that it they are involved in inappropriate touching with a lewd or sexual intent when they frisk passengers who opt-out of the X-rated … um, I mean the X-ray scans. We’re told that sheriff’s deputies will be sent into airports to keep an eye on TSA employees.

Given the fact that the Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment, rather than federal statutes and regulations, is the supreme law of the land, every single state and local official who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States would seem to have a duty to interpose on behalf of the People, whenever it comes to their attention that the individuals who are pleased to call themselves our federal government, either ignore or trample on the Bill of Rights.

On this important issue, it seems that local government officials are surging ahead of their state counterparts. However, it should always be remembered that it is within the power of the governors of the several states to convene their separate legislatures in order to devise constitutional measures that could obstruct, if not immediately halt unreasonable searches mandated by the TSA in each of their states.

GOVERNOR TRUMBULL

In 1809, Connecticut Governor Johnathan Trumbull convened such a special session, partially in response to unreasonable searches and seizures that were part of the embargo enacted by President Jefferson at that time. In his opening address at that state’s special legislative session he said:

“Despairing of substantial relief from any other quarter, the people are now looking with anxious solicitude and hope, to the wisdom and direction of the Legislature of their own choice [their state legislature] ; and seem confident that some mode may be devised to remove the pressure under which they are at present suffering. To your collected wisdom and prudence they submit the task. And may it not be hoped, that, with our united efforts under a temperate, discreet and firm consideration of our situation and circumstances, we may be able by the influence of divine aid, to fulfil the just and reasonable expectations of our fellow citizens? Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task—it is their right—it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government.”

That same day, the Connecticut State Legislature adopted resolutions concerning the embargo act which restrained persons holding executive offices in that state, “..from affording any official aid or co-operation in the execution of the act aforesaid;..And that the secretary of this State be and he is hereby directed to transmit copies of the same to the several sheriffs and town clerks.”

THE SPIRIT OF 2010?

Whether the battle against unreasonable airport searches, which began this year, will end up being as effective as Connecticut’s resistance to unreasonable searches during the embargo of 1809, or whether it will be as successful as current state efforts which nullify federal Real ID mandates, the federal prohibition of medical marijuana and other acts of federal usurpation, remains to be seen.

It will all depend on the people of the several states and whether their representatives in local government show that they have spines like David Greenfield and Steve Wagstaffe in California and New York. It will also depend of whether they have governors and state legislators who are willing to be as courageous as Governor Johnathan Trumbull and the legislature of Connecticut were in 1809.

2010-10-20T23:56:00.000-07:00

Usurpation: The Weapon By Which Free Governments Are Destroyed

by Derek J. Sheriff

Editors note: This article can also be listened to as an .MP3. See episode #1 of The Arizona Tenth Amendment Center Podcast. CLICK HERE to visit the podcast's iTunes page!

What is Usurpation?

If there is a term that I wish would become a household word to be used again by every American in their daily political discussions, it would be the word “usurpation”. Yes, I would love it even more if average Americans would add to that list the words: “Nullification“, “interposition” and the phrase, “the principles of ’98“. However, in order to understand the meaning of those words in their political context, you have to understand usurpation. Before you can discover an effective solution, you have to correctly identify and understand the problem.

Usurpation is the unauthorized, unlawful exercise of power. Whenever a person, department or branch of the government (federal, state, or local) usurps, they assume undelegated powers and are therefore acting outside the law.

Our Constitution (the supreme law of the land), created a federal government of strictly limited, enumerated powers when it was ratified by the people’s delegates in their respective state conventions. These states were not created by the Constitution, beacuse they already existed.

As part of this new constitutional contract between the people of the several states, their respective state governments and the federal government, the people of each state (as opposed to one American people as a whole), delegated a few, carefully defined powers to the new federal government. They did so with the understanding that these powers could be revoked if necessary. Furthermore, all the other powers which they did not loan to the federal government, they either retained for themselves or delegated back to their state governments. Each state’s constitution differs slightly, but all of them guarantee their citizens a republican form of government.

Whenever the people who make up the federal government, either as individuals, as departments or as branches, exercise power not expressly delegated to them as specified in the Constitution, they are usurping the authority of either the states or the people. Why? Because as the 10th Amendment makes it clear:

“All powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.”

The Bane of Free Governments

George Washington warned against the dangers of usurpation. He called it ‘the weapon by which free governments are destroyed”. He urged Americans to guard against it and reject it for the evil that it is. In his farewell address, he wrote:

“If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong,let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

As Obama likes to say, “Let me be clear”. When the federal government steps beyond the boundaries that are specifically drawn around it by the Constitution and its amendments, it isn’t abusing powers that it doeshave, it’s usurping powers that it doesn’t have.

Question: What should the people of the several states’ reaction to federal usurpation be?

Answer: Swift and resolute action in the form of nullification and/or interposition by, with and through our state governments and their county and local subordinates.

In such cases, we must not exercise patience and wait to “Vote the bums out” in 2012 or even as soon as 2010! We should do that when the time comes, yes. But in the meantime, to allow our state governments to wait until the usurpers are removed from office through elections would be to consent to a dangerous dereliction of their duty to protect our constitutional rights.

What is Nullification?

In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which was one of the federal government’s earliest acts of usurpation. An early draft of it began:

“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government”

and

“where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”

Nullification is a state’s decision to render a particular federal law that it deems unconstitutional void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state. It is a process which can unfold in a variety of ways. It may involve formal legislation, or it may not. I could include court battles, but not necessarily. Interposition by state and local officials, such as your state’s Attorney General or elected county sheriff might be required, but not always. A few times in the past, state nullification conventions have even been convened, but this has been the exception, not the rule.

The process of nullification will look different in each state, according to the particular issue and the social and political culture of that state’s people. But understand, although it’s not a ‘silver bullet”, nullification does work! Don’t let anyone feed you a bunch of phony historical narratives. Do your own study of the history of nullification and see for yourself.

Finally, as George Washington wrote, let there be no change by usurpation! Instead, let us work with our elected state officials to nullify acts of federal usurpation and reclaim the sovereignty that is every American’s birthright.

Derek J. Sheriff [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center and the host of the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center Podcast. His blog “The Principles of ‘98″ can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com

Arizonans Dare to Defy the Feds Again!

2010-10-15T03:28:00.000-07:00

by Derek Sheriff
Just when you thought Arizona couldn’t get any more provocative, or push any more of the federal government’s buttons, it looks like America’s 48th state may actually become the 15th state to adopt another very controversial law!
This proposed law, on the other hand, may actually make some people on the Left, as well as the Right, happy for a change. I have my doubts about whether it will make those who put party above principle, or anyone employed by the U.S. Department of Justice happy, however.
While Arizona was getting tons of media attention related to the passage of its high profile immigration enforcement law, (SB 1070), the grassroots activists that were delivering more than 100 boxes of petitions containing 252,000 signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office received little.
But this recently, Fox 11 Arizona’s website reported:
“Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s office on Tuesday certified that organizers of the initiative campaign had turned in enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot.”
What measure is he referring to?
The Medical Marijuana Initiative, of course! The initiative, which Arizona voters will soon have a chance to vote into law this November, would do seven things according to the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project’s website:
Allow terminally and seriously ill patients who find relief from marijuana to use it with their doctors’ approval.

Protect these seriously ill patients from arrest and prosecution for the simple act of taking their doctor-recommended medicine.

Permit qualifying patients or their caregivers to legally purchase their medicine from tightly regulated clinics, as they would any other medicine — so they need not purchase it from the criminal market.

Permit qualifying patients or their caregivers to cultivate their own marijuana for medical use if a regulated medical marijuana clinic is not located within 25 miles of the qualifying patient.

Create registry identification cards, so that law enforcement officials could easily tell who was a registered patient, and establish penalties for false statements and fraudulent ID cards.

Allow patients and their caregivers who are arrested to discuss their medical use in court.

Keep commonsense restrictions on the medical use of marijuana, including prohibitions on public use of marijuana and driving under the influence of marijuana.

The AMMPP, which is a grassroots organization, has been devoted to passing a medical marijuana initiative in Arizona in November 2010. As they explain on their homepage:
“Currently, seriously ill people who use marijuana on the advice of their doctor to treat illnesses such as cancer, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis are subject to arrest and imprisonment, simply for trying to stimulate their appetite or alleviate their pain.”
Objections
People who often dismiss state laws allowing the use of medical marijuana always seem to argue that “federal law trumps state law” and that federal “laws” still prohibit the possession, use, cultivation or distribution of the plant, even for medical purposes.
It’s true that federal “laws” make no exceptions for those who are sick and suffering, and the Feds have claimed universal jurisdiction, even over plants that are grown and consumed by patients in their own home. But I wish more of these critics, (and all Americans for that matter), would take the time to ask the following question:
“Which of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution gives them the authority to prohibit the cultivation or use of marijuana at all, for any reason?”
It’s a fair question, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to it. Michael Boldin, founder of the Los Angeles based Tenth Amendment Center puts it this way:
“An honest reading of the Constitution with an original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers makes it quite clear that the federal government has no constitutional authority to override state laws on marijuana. All three branches of the federal government, however, have interpreted (and re-interpreted) the commerce clause of the Constitution to authorize them to engage in this activity, even though there’s supposedly no ‘legal’ commerce in the plant. At best, these arguments are dubious; at worst an intentional attack on the Constitution and your liberty.”
I know it’s difficult for educated, reasonably intelligent people to understand how cultivating, harvesting and consuming a plant, all on one’s own property, is actually in fact, a form of “interstate commerce”. However, that is only because it defies common sense, which is something the unelected, black robed demi-godswho preside over our federal court system do with ease almost daily. We mere mundanes, on the other hand, lack their special wisdom, which allows them to interpret the words of the Constitution in a more innovative and sophisticated way. Our duty is to stand in awe, bow our heads, wave incense before their judgement seats, and to suppress any impulse we might have to think critically about their interpretations.
Don’t be fooled. As far as medical marijuana is concerned, all marijuana that is produced within a state’s boundaries and stays there, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of that state!
Congressional Commerce Clause Abuse
It’s funny that the same “Commerce Clause”, which has been pervert ed by the federal government to prohibit the medical use of marijuana, was also the same clause that was twisted to justify passing the legislation that gave us Obamacare. Fortunately, Arizona voters will have the opportunity to effectively nullify both Obamacare and the federal prohibition of medical marijuana this November.
Whether you approve of people using it for any reason, medical or otherwise, the fact of the matter is that unless and until the US Constitution is properly amended (the way it had to be in order to enact alcohol prohibition), the federal government has no authority to interfere with seriously ill Arizonans who decide to use marijuana with their state government’s permission.
The last time I checked, I discovered that although the 10th Amendment has been largely ignored by the Feds, it has not not been officially repealed. Just like all health care decisions, a person’s choice to use or not use Medical Marijuana is a sensitive and highly personal decision. It’s a decision that should, at the very most, be decided by we the people, in our own state, not by politicians or unelected bureaucrats and judges in far off Washington, DC!
Like every other state level measure designed to nullify unconstitutional acts of federal usurpation, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Initiative has the potential to be an unstoppable choice if the people of Arizona simply resolve to exercise their constitutional rights, with or without Washington, DC’s permission.
The County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope
But won’t the DEA come in and arrest people who are dispensing medical marijuana and/or even the sick and dying people who use it?
Well, the answer to that question largely depends on whether or not your state officials, especially your elected county sheriff, allows them to get away with doing that.
More and more sheriffs and candidates who are running for the office of sheriff, are boldly coming out and frankly saying that they will not tolerate federal agents who would dare to harass and arrest the innocent people they have sworn to protect.
Bill Hunt, for example, is a candidate for sheriff of Orange County, CA. He is part of a growing movement of incumbents and candidates seeking the elected office of sheriff who have seen the light. This great awakening of sheriffs across the country has mostly been the result of the educational efforts of former under cover narcotics officer and two term Graham County, AZ sheriff, Richard Mack.
Here’s an excerpt from a recent interview with Bill Hunt:
Question: “If you are elected sheriff and the DEA came into Orange County (OC) and asked OC Sheriff’s Department to help shut down medical marijuana dispensaries, would you oblige them with support?”
Bill Hunt: “No. I would prevent them, it’s unconstitutional! I’m not an advocate for legalizing marijuana but on tpthe other hand the sheriff is elected to enforce state laws. So, if I’m elected sheriff to this county enforcing state law and I’m using federal law to circumvent state law, then I’m not really being true to my office and my oath of office. The sheriff can prevent the feds from coming in and doing that.”
I can assure you, Bill Hunt is not alone. There are sheriffs already in office, and many more running for office, who agree with him 100%. But even if you don’t live in a county with a sheriff who takes his oath to support and defend the Constitution seriously (give him a copy of Sheriff Mack’s book and start educating him about his oath, or replace him with someone who is committed to keeping it), here is what the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) has to say about the matter that is very optimistic:
“Even within the confines of federal law, states can enact reforms that have the practical effect of removing the fear of patients being arrested and prosecuted under state law — as well as the symbolic effect of pushing the federal government to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana..Federal laws still apply to patients. While the federal government does not have the resources to arrest, try, and incarcerate a significant number of small-scale medical marijuana users and growers, the federal government has raided some large-scale medical marijuana distributors in California. However, because 99 out of 100 marijuana arrests are made at the state or local level, state medical marijuana laws give patients 99% protection.”
The Will Of The People And The Power Of The States
Take a step back and look at the big picture for a moment. What the MPP says about enforcement of the federal laws criminalizing medical marijuana also applies to other unconstitutional federal laws that states might decide to nullify. Some examples are: Obamacare, Cap and Trade, federal regulations on firearms manufactured and kept within state boundaries, the federal plan to ban incandescent light bulbs, or federal regulations that might prohibit the sale and consumption of raw milk. All of these have to actually be enforced by someone.

Get the Book Today!
If the people of a state choose to ignore the federal government’s unconstitutional acts of usurpation, which it mistakenly refers to as “laws”, and their state government stops assisting the Feds in their enforcement efforts, the reality is that the federal government does not have the resources or manpower to investigate, arrest, try, and incarcerate a significant number of those people who choose to ignore illegitimate federal edicts and instead exercise their constitutional rights.
The truth is that when enough people within a given state begin to form a consensus that certain federal laws forced upon them are unconstitutional and therefore illegitimate, and a majority of their government officials at the state and local level agree with and support them, then the idea that Thomas Jefferson expressed so clearly in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, will be actualized:
“.. whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…”
Let’s make it so.

Derek J. Sheriff [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center. He is also the host of The Arizona Tenth Amendment Podcast. This article was originally featured in June 2010 by The Tenth Amendment Center and LewRockwell.com
Copyright © 2010 by Derek J. Sheriff. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Nullification In One Lesson

2010-10-09T23:31:00.000-07:00

: Authors of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798

Note: If you do not find the title of this article presumptuous, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with Henry Hazlitt's classic: Economics in One Lesson. My intention was not to be presumptuous, but rather tongue-in-cheek. However, I want to bring to your attention a new book, that in all seriousness does present nullification in one lesson. New York Times bestselling author, Thomas E. Woods, Jr. has written a new book titled: Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century

The True Nature of the Union:

Some of today's most brilliant patriots may be mistaken when they assert that the states created the federal government. However, it all depends on what they mean by "the states". If they are using the word "states" as shorthand for the people of the several states, as opposed to the American people in aggregate, then they are correct. If by the term "the states" they mean the legislatures of the several states, then they are incorrect.

"It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our State governments are superior to the Federal or the Federal to the States. The people, to whom all authority belongs, have divided the powers of government into two distinct departments, the leading characters of which are foreign and domestic; and they have appointed for each a distinct set of functionaries. These they have made coordinate, checking and balancing each other like the three cardinal departments in the individual States; each equally supreme as to the powers delegated to itself, and neither authorized ultimately to decide what belongs to itself or to its coparcener in government. As independent, in fact, as different nations." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821."

A New Form of Government: Federalism

Acting in their highest capacity, as sovereign political societies, the people of the several states ratified the US Constitution and gave life to the newly created federal government. The people of the several states, NOT the American people as a whole, acted by, with and through the special ratifying conventions, which they convened in their separate states. In these special conventions, which deliberately bypassed their state legislatures, they delegated a few, carefully defined powers to the federal government. These powers were enumerated in the US Constitution.
They had already delegated numerous and indefinite powers to their state governments, which were enumerated in their respective state constitutions. The majority of powers, however, they retained for themselves, reaffirming the hallowed American tradition of self-government. Although these principles were already contained in the structure of the original Constitution itself, the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights expanded upon and clarified them beyond any reasonable doubt.
In summary, both state and federal governments derive their powers directly from the people of the several states. In ratifying the Constitution, then, they established a system of dual-sovereignty, in which the state governments and federal government are co-equal.
Even before the Constitution was ratified, James Madison reassured the anti-federalist skeptics that this system of dual sovereignty would protect their rights. He wrote:

“Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (The Federalist # 51).

We must never forget that our state governments are charged with the duty of controlling the federal government. To do so would be to ignore one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.

The 10th Amendment:

Thomas Jefferson considered the 10th Amendment to be the cornerstone of the Constitution. He wrote:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground:
That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the
people' [10th Amendment]. To take a single step beyond the boundaries
thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take
possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any
definition."

and

"The true barriers of our liberty in this country are our State governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man is that of which our Revolution and present government found us possessed."

Usurpation: When the line is crossed

"I have always thought that where the line of demarcation between the powers of the General and the State governments was doubtfully or indistinctly drawn it would be prudent and praiseworthy in both parties never to approach it but under the most urgent necessity." --Thomas Jefferson
When the federal government steps beyond the boundaries that are specifically drawn around it by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it isn't abusing powers that it DOES have, it's usurping powers that it DOESN'T have. What should our reaction be to federal usurpation?

Vote the Bums out?

If a branch of the federal government abuses a power clearly delegated to it by the Constitution, that is, one which can be found among the enumerated powers listed in the articles of the Constitution, then there is a clear remedy:
Change the people who make up the federal government at the time of the next election.
However, if one or more branches of the federal government USURPS a power not delegated to it, that is another situation altogether! If the federal government usurps one of the powers retained by the states or the people (violates the 10th Amendment), then this calls for much more swift and resolute action on the part of the states! In such cases, we must NOT exercise patience and wait to "Vote the bums out" in 2012 or even 2010!

Submission, Revolution, Secession or Nullification?

When Congress or the President usurps -- that is to say, when either or both of them exercise a power NOT delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, the people of the several states and their representatives in state government have four choices:
1. They can submit to the act of federal usurpation for the time being and wait until the next election, with the hope that they may elect new people to federal government who will discredit and repeal the act of usurpation.
2. They can exercise their right of revolution and and alter or abolish the federal government.
3. They can peacefully withdraw from the Union -- which was created after all, by the people of the several states.
4. Or, they can demand that their state government arrest the progress of federal usurpation by an act of nullification.

Nullification:

In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which was one of the federal government's earliest acts of usurpation. It began:

“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government”
and

“where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”
Nullification is a state's decision to render a particular federal law that it deems unconstitutional void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state.

Weighing the Options:
1. Submission:
Advantage: Requires no courage or sacrifice; Avoids confrontation; Ensures federal funding will continue to flow.
Disadvantage: Invites more usurpation; Incremental loss of liberty and state sovereignty; Higher taxes in most cases; Federal funding may become unreliable; Even if we were able to "clean house" and clear Congress of every bad incumbent (unlikely), the new representitives may not keep their promises or might be unable to implement real reform -- Remember the Republican "Contract with America"? Remember Scott Brown's campaign promises? How that working out for you?
Conclusion: Unacceptable option.
2. Revolution:
Advantage: Overturns usurpation and discourages future acts of usurpation.
Disadvantage: Dangerous because it risks more social chaos and economic hardship than minor acts of federal usurpation themselves create; Revolution risks life, property, prosperity and the stability of the social order.
Conclusion: Drastic, irresponsible option for all but the most intolerable acts of usurpation and tyranny.
3. Secession:
Advantage: Defensive; May avoid violent confrontation with the federal government; Prevents future acts of federal usurpation and tyranny; May unleash greater liberty and prosperity; Frees the state from burdensome obligations and dangerous risks tied to the old regime.
Disadvantage: Avoids, or "runs away from" the problem; Too rash a solution for most acts of federal usurpation; Temporary social and economic disruption.
Conclusion: Unwise, rash option for most acts of federal usurpation.
4. Nullification:
Advantage: Avoids all the disadvantages of the other three options; Confronts the federal government in a moderate but firm manner; Enlightens and educates the people of the several states; Preserves the Union AND federalism.
Disadvantage: Requires state legislators who understand federalism and the original meaning of the Constitution.
Conclusion: Nullification is the moderate, constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal behavior.

What if the federal government tries to overrule a state's act of nullification?
The two most recent cases of successful nullification involve resistance to the federal REAL ID Act and federal prohibition of medical marijuana. Space does not permit a lengthy treatment of all the states that have nullified federal REAL ID and federal marijuana laws. But whatever your opinion is about these issues, two things should be clear: Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to regulate plants that remain within the boundaries of a state or demand that state drivers licenses conform to federal specifications. These are state issues, period.

So to make a long story short, in both cases, the federal government has backed off. When state governments refuse to cooperate, the feds recognize that they simply do not have the resources or man power to enforce their unconstitutional laws.

But what if the feds don't back off when states use nullification to neutralize other unconstitutional federal laws, such as intrastate firearms regulation, federally mandated health insurance or Cap and Trade?

Here's what Michael Boldin, the founder and director of the Tenth Amendment Center, has to say:

"Ultimately, however, nullification is much more than mere rhetoric. To nullify a federal law in practice may require active resistance on the part of the people and their state government.
In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

'That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.'
Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are 'duty bound to interpose' or stand between the federal government and the people of the state."
In the unlikely event that one or more branches of the federal government decides to take extra-legal measures to punish residents of a state for exercising their constitutional rights in defiance of unconstitutional federal laws, will that state’s government have the courage to hamper or even neutralize such extra-legal measures?

There are a whole host of peaceful actions that a state government can adopt if that day comes or appears to be just over the horizon. These measures range from county sheriffs requiring that federal agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue.

The sheriffs in this country are indeed the ultimate law enforcement authority in their respective jurisdictions. The sheriff has the power and responsibility to defend his citizens against all enemies – foreign and domestic. Former two term county sheriff Richard Mack has pointed out many times that the sheriff may be America's last hope.

Doesn't Federal Law Trump State Law?
Yes, but only when the federal law in question is pursuant to one of the federal government's enumerated powers. A federal law or other measure that exceeds the limited powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution is simply an act of usurpation. In short, it's not a law at all.

The Principles of '98:
The principles first articulated by Jefferson and Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions came to be known over time as "The Principles of '98". They were invoked by many states, north and south, for a variety of issues, all throughout the nineteenth century. These issues involved everything from states' claims of unconstitutional embargoes(1807-1809), conscription for The War of 1812, the Second Bank of the United States (1825), and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

Today, the Principles of '98 have been rediscovered and are again being invoked to confront everything fromCongressional "Commerce Clause" abuse (CCCA) to Cap and Trade and unconstitutional Legal Tender Laws.

Here's to the republic, the rights of man and the Principles of '98!

Copyright © 2010 by Derek J. Sheriff. Permission to reprint or reproduce this article in any form is gladly granted provided credit is given and the URL for this blog is linked or mentioned.

Derek Sheriff is an ex-Green Beret turned liberty activist and the Arizona State Chapter Coordinator for the Tenth Amendment Center.