After being nearly derailed on a technicality earlier this month, Texas House Concurrent Resolution 50 (HCR50) was brought back for a vote today, and passed by a wide margin.

The resolution affirms that “the State of Texas claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates, and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.”

The final vote was 99-36. (click here to see the tally)

Here’s the full text of the resolution: Continue Reading

Today, the Oregon State House passed Senate Bill 536 (SB0536), which “Prohibits state from expending funds to comply with federal Real ID Act of 2005 unless certain requirements are met.”

The Bill, which passed by a vote of 39-6 also “Directs Department of Transportation to analyze cost of complying with Real ID Act of 2005 and make report available to public.” Continue Reading

In the following audio, Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute interviews University of Montana law professor Rob Natelson about the proper interpretation of the Necessary and Proper clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Click the play button below to load the audio - approximately 44 minutes long. (note: it’s a relatively large file, so it will take a few minutes to load)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Here’s a few recent articles that Professor Natelson has contributed to the Tenth Amendment Center:

• It’s the People’s Right!
• The Enumerated Powers of States
• The Constitution: A Question of Interpretation

Rob Natelson is Professor of Law and David Mason scholar at the University of Montana, where he teaches constitutional law and constitutional history.  He is currently seeking a publisher for his latest book, The Original Constitution.

by Larry L. Beane II, LewRockwell.com

The founders of the American Republic knew their Latin.

That is why they carefully chose the word “federal.” In James Madison’s original draft of a proposed new Constitution (the “Virginia Plan”), the word “national” was used to describe the proposed new Union. However, this word was explicitly rejected by the Constitutional Convention, specifically because the founders did not see the United States as a “nation” but rather as a “federation.” Their vision was for the United States to be a union of sovereign states as opposed to a consolidation of the states into “one nation, indivisible” – and this reality is embedded in the very word “federal.”

Convention delegate Gouverneur Morris addressed this distinction in the debates on May 30, 1787.

The Latin motto “e pluribus unum” also captures the plural nature of the Union. It was never meant to be collapsed and rolled into into “one nation.” This is even evident in common grammatical usage, for while the architects of the Union were still living, the singular verb “is” was not paired up with the plural subject “United States.”

But within decades, the federal government became increasingly heavy-handed with the states. Continue Reading

from the Delaware Sussex Countian

Delawareans afflicted with a variety of chronic and painful conditions would be able to legally use medical marijuana to ease their suffering under a bill now under consideration in the Delaware State Senate.

Sen. Margaret Rose Henry (D-Wilmington East), said her bill isn’t an outright decriminalization of marijuana and is aimed at balancing compassion for the sick with maintaining tight controls on access and the amount of marijuana a person can have.

“Modern science shows us that marijuana can have beneficial effects for people suffering from a number of conditions including cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and HIV-AIDS,” Henry said. “While we don’t want to encourage the use of marijuana as a recreational drug, it makes no sense at all to deny the comfort it can give to people suffering from truly debilitating and painful diseases.”

If passed, Henry’s bill would:

• Limit patients to six ounces of marijuana a month.
• Require patients, people designated as caregivers and personnel at the “Compassion Care Centers” where pot could be distributed to have state issued ID cards authorizing their ability to access marijuana. The non-profit centers could not be operated within 500 feet of an existing public or private school.
• Require that marijuana be cultivated in enclosed, locked facilities with security systems to prevent theft.
• Ban employers from firing an employee receiving medical marijuana if they fail a drug screening. However, employees could be fired for working under the influence of marijuana.
• Prohibit the use of marijuana in public places, on public transportation, in schools and in prison.

Dr. John Goodill, chief of pain and palliative medicine at Christiana Care, said he supports Henry’s bill because it’s based on a proven model that’s produced good results for patients.

“This bill follows a model that has worked well in other states to date,” Goodill said.  “I think the medical evidence is compelling enough to add it to the list of options for relieving suffering in people living with serious illness and chronic pain.”

Joe Scarborough of Wilmington has used marijuana to ease the side effects of the drugs he takes to combat the effects of AIDS and to ease the pain in his leg and foot from nerve damage caused when a cancerous tumor was removed from his back. He praised Henry for taking on the issue and focusing it on using marijuana for medicinal purposes, instead of pushing for options, such as blanket decriminalization.

“Maybe, in a perfect world, you’d discuss total decriminalization, but I think Sen. Henry’s approach – just focusing on the people who can be helped by medical marijuana – is the right one,” Scarborough said. “I can tell you that, in my case, smoking marijuana has helped with the pain and nausea associated with the drugs I take for AIDS as well as chemotherapy and it has helped with pain caused by my nerve damage.”

On Tuesday, 05-26-09, Massachusetts State Representative Jeffrey Davis Perry (R-Sandwich) filed a Resolution before the House of Representatives to protect the Founding Fathers’ intent and the Constitutional protections of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states:

“The 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 purpose of this Resolution is to clearly affirm to Congress and the President our  State’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and to demand that the federal government halt the practice of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes which are not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States of America” said Representative Perry from the State House.

As cited by the Tenth Amendment Center, “James Madison, during the Constitutional ratification process, drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress.  Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated.  In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well…

The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.  The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.

The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws.  It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters.  It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.”

The language of the Resolution is as follows: Continue Reading

On 05-26-09 Tennessee’s House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed House Joint Resolution 108 (HJR0108), which was introduced by Susan Lynn in February.  After adopting one amendment, the final version passed 85-2.

The resolution urges Congress to recognize Tennessee’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, and is ready for transmittal to the State Senate.

Read the full text of the resolution below: Continue Reading