Archive | June, 2009

Tags: , ,

Charles Key: A Constitutional Republic

Posted on 30 June 2009 by Michael Boldin

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.

Charles Key, State Representative from Oklahoma’s 90th District, discusses Oklahoma’s 10th Amendment Resolution, the Constitution and limits on the federal government’s power, the long-standing abuses of the constitution no matter which administration or party is in power, bailouts and real id as unconstitutional, why it’s urgent to act now, the OK gubernatorial campaign, the Firearms Freedom Act, and the constitution - not the federal government - as the source of law in the United States.

Mentioned in this Show:

Oklahoma Sovereignty Resolution

CharlesKey.com

@ckey - twitter

Facebook Page

Randy Brogdon for OK Governor

Comments (26)

Tags: , , ,

The New King George

Posted on 29 June 2009 by Tenth Amendment

by Rob Natelson

In Washington, D.C. a group presents the Secretary of Education with a 120,000-signature petition asking the federal government to fund an effort to require every public school student in the country to take courses the group favors.

In Montana, activists flood the newspapers with letters urging that Congress force all Americans into a single government-run health care system.

In California, state officials lobby the U.S. Treasury to force the rest of us to guarantee short-term California debt so the state can balance its budget without correcting decades of overspending.

None of these demands would make sense even in the best of times.  Public education is most effective when funding and other decisions are local.  Giving more power to the same government that created the health care mess will raise costs further, and costs will drop only when government largely withdraws from the health care marketplace.  Handing a state “free money” will not induce that state to get its fiscal house in order. Continue Reading

Comments (143)

Tags: , ,

Tennessee Governor Signs Sovereignty Resolution

Posted on 27 June 2009 by Michael Boldin

by Michael Boldin

This week, Tennesse Governor Phil Bredesen signed House Joint Resolution 108 (HJR0108), authored by State Rep. Susan Lynn.  The resolution “Urges Congress to recognize Tennessee’s sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the Constitution.”

The House passed the resolution on 05/26 by a vote of 85-2 and the Senate passed it on 06/12 by a vote of 31-0.

Six other states have had both houses of their legislature pass similar resolutions - Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Louisiana - but Tennessee is the first to have such a resolution signed by the Governor. Continue Reading

Comments (32)

Tags: , , ,

Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification

Posted on 26 June 2009 by Michael Boldin

by Michael Boldin

Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014).  This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.

Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.

Five other states — Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming — are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots.

Real ID as the Blueprint?

While some constitutional experts are skeptical of the effect that such legislation could have, supporters can point to the successful campaign to oppose the Real ID Act.

In early 2007, Maine and then Utah passed resolutions refusing to implement the federal Real ID act on grounds that the law was unconstitutional.  Well-over a dozen more states followed suit in passing legislation opposing Real ID.

Instead of attempting to force the law to implementation, the federal government delayed implementation not once, but twice, and additional states  got on board with legally-binding legislation refusing Real ID implementation.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration, recognizing the insurmountable task of enforcing a law in the face of such broad resistance, announced that it was looking to “repeal and replace” the controversial law.

Nullification

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective’, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Nullification has a long and interesting history in American politics, and originates in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds, to the point of ignoring federal laws.

Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.

Historian Thomas E. Woods looks at nullification as a constitutional “check,” and a way to prevent one government from having the power to rule on the limits of its own authority:

“The main point that nullification aims to address is that a government allowed to determine the scope of its own powers cannot remain limited for long. This is a lesson we should have learned by now. Moreover, since piecemeal solutions to reducing federal power have accomplished nothing, we can hardly afford to dismiss out of hand the idea of nullification, a remedy that is at once creative and intelligent, and recommended by some of the greatest political thinkers in American history.”

Resistance Left, Right and Center?

Groups across the political spectrum have focused their efforts on this same principle - calling on state governments to not just say no to the federal government, but to actively resist federal laws and actions.

  • Firearms Freedom Acts have passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and under the force of law, call on those governments to refuse federal regulation of firearms made and kept in those respective states.
  • Bring the Guard Home is a campaign of mostly antiwar activists that are calling on governors to assert constitutional authority over their state’s guard - and refuse to deploy troops for any reason other than authorized by the constitution
  • Medical Marijuana Laws - have passed in multiple states around the country and are directly opposed to federal drug laws that see marijuana as illegal under all circumstances.
  • Real ID legislation has passed in approximately 2 dozen states requiring state governments to refuse implementation of the 2005 law.
  • Health Care Freedom Acts are being actively pursued in six states (including Arizona), and would resist proposed national health care legislation on a number of levels.

Comments (74)

Tags: , ,

Know Your Rights or You Will Lose Them

Posted on 25 June 2009 by Tenth Amendment

by John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute

“It astonishes me to find… [that so many] of our countrymen… should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty… which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries.”
–Thomas Jefferson, 1788

“Most citizens,” writes columnist Nat Hentoff, “are largely uneducated about their own constitutional rights and liberties.”

The following true incident is a case in point for Hentoff’s claim. A young attorney, preparing to address a small gathering about the need to protect freedom, especially in the schools, wrote the text of the First Amendment on a blackboard. After carefully reading the text, a woman in the audience approached the attorney, pointed to the First Amendment on the board and remarked, “My, the law is really changing. Is this new?” The woman was a retired schoolteacher.

For more than 200 years, Americans have enjoyed the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, among others, without ever really studying the source of those liberties, found in the Bill of Rights–the first ten amendments to our U. S. Constitution. Continue Reading

Comments (40)

Tags: ,

Louisiana: 7th State to Affirm Sovereignty

Posted on 24 June 2009 by Michael Boldin

Today, the Louisiana State House voted to approve Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 (SCR2) which “Memorializes Congress to affirm Louisiana’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States of America.”

The resolution, authored by State Senator Crowe, passed by a vote of 59-12.  It previously passed the State Senate by a vote of 32-0.  (h/t hayestown) Continue Reading

Comments (17)

Tags: , , ,

Live Free or Die

Posted on 24 June 2009 by Tenth Amendment

by Walter E. Williams

“Live Free or Die” is the title of author and columnist Mark Steyn’s speech at Hillsdale College, reproduced in Imprimis (April 2009), a Hillsdale publication that’s free for the asking. Canadian born, now living in New Hampshire, Steyn has had firsthand experience with socialist tyranny in his home country that is rapidly becoming a part of America.

Commenting on one of his run-ins with Canada’s human rights commissions, Steyn points how it might seem bizarre to find the progressive left making common cause with radical Islam. One half of that alliance is pro-gay, pro-feminist secularists and the other half is homophobic, misogynist theocrats. Continue Reading

Comments (8)

Tags: ,

The Constitution: Amendments

Posted on 23 June 2009 by Tenth Amendment

by Rob Natelson, Electric City Weblog

Many (including this writer) think the federal government has slipped its constitutional leash and that the people may have to re-stabilize matters with one or more constitutional amendments. How would this be done?

Article V of the Constitution provides for four methods of amendment: Continue Reading

Comments (33)

Tags: , ,

Restore Constitutional Government!

Posted on 22 June 2009 by Tenth Amendment

by Jim Jess

The time has come to restore constitutional government based on the original intent of the founders of the United States of America. The republic, the system of limited government that was established in the Constitution of the United States, was abandoned long ago by many who swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

It is time for we, the people, to demand that members of Congress and our president follow the oaths they swore to keep, or be removed from office in the next election.

Restore the Constitution you say? In what manner? When, in fact, was the Constitution abandoned or ignored? In many ways at many times over many years our elected officials have violated their oaths and ignored the constitutional limits on their authority. We, the people, have not been vigilant to hold them accountable for their actions. A historical illustration will serve to make this point quite well.

Many years ago, I came across a publication from the Foundation for Economic Education, the nation’s oldest free-market organization, which studies and advances the freedom philosophy. The publication was a four-page pamphlet entitled, “Not Yours to Give,” and I still have it in my library. The pamphlet related an amazing story about Davy Crockett, who, in the 1830s was a member of Congress. It grabbed my attention then and continues to inspire me today.

As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Crockett had supported a bill appropriating $20,000 for the relief of some residents of Georgetown, in Washington, D.C., who had lost their homes in a fire. When campaigning by horseback in his Tennessee congressional district, Crockett came across a constituent who plainly told him he would not vote to re-elect Crockett because of his vote for the $20,000 appropriation. Taken aback, Crockett wanted to understand why.

The constituent, a man named Horatio Bunce, explained:

“If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.”

There is more to Horatio Bunce’s eloquent argument, but this is the heart of it. Crockett was convinced of the error of his ways by Horatio Bunce and became a much better congressman because of it. Bunce believed, as did Thomas Jefferson and patriots who understand the Constitution today, that unless the Constitution has stipulated a governmental power or responsibility, neither Congress, the president nor the courts have the power to act. This was the essence of Jefferson’s argument against the formation of the Bank of the United States, what constitutional scholars have referred to as “strict constructionism.”

Jefferson wrote regarding the formation of a national bank:

“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.” [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

“The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.”

The Twelfth Amendment that Jefferson mentioned had not yet been ratified when he wrote his opinion opposing a national bank. And, because two of the proposed twelve amendments in the Bill of Rights were not ratified, the amendment Jefferson quoted became the Tenth Amendment after the necessary states ratified it. Jefferson’s wisdom is amplified today as we recognize the language of the Tenth Amendment, yet wonder why our Congress ignores the amendment.

Tenth Amendment

“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 Tenth Amendment is ignored by our federal officials today because if it was followed, it would limit their power and authority. If they maintained the spirit of the Tenth Amendment, liberty would flourish and states would be freer to enact more of their own policies. The power of politicians in Washington, D.C. would be limited and their ability to spend our money on numerous unnecessary and wasteful programs would be seriously curtailed.

Our politicians in Congress exceeded their constitutional authority long ago. They have appropriated money for many purposes with no constitutional authority to do so. They have formed government corporations and agencies to dispense funds wrongly taxed from the people for causes that have no constitutional legitimacy.

They have used the people’s money for what appear to be “charitable” purposes in this nation and around the globe. (But charity refers to free-will giving by individuals, so there is no way that money taken from the taxpayers under threat of imprisonment is charity.) Congress and the president have propped up corrupt dictators and pursued numerous foreign policy intrigues around the world. They have squandered the taxpayers’ money on international organizations controlled by governments that despise liberty and seek policies contrary to our national interests.

They have provided basic sustenance for those who refuse to work. They have encouraged the destruction of families through their misguided social welfare policies. They have discouraged the proper functioning of the free enterprise system by rewarding certain producers and favored industries at the expense of competitors with less political influence. I could go on, but you get the picture.

Our government has wasted our money on numerous programs that are not supported by any sound application of constitutional principles. The founders took a limited and logical approach to what government can and should try to accomplish. Those who have desired an expansion of governmental power at the expense of our liberty, beginning at some point during the first half of the twentieth century, have been winning the day.

It is time to turn back the juggernaut of meddling, irresponsible, and bankrupting unconstitutional government and restore the vision of the framers of our Constitution. If we do not do this, we face a dark and uncertain future, one steeped in more political and governmental control of our lives and shrinking personal liberty.

This coming Independence Day let us declare our independence from wasteful, tax-burdening and oppressive unconstitutional government. Let us affirm our commitment to individual liberty and the true intent of our Constitution. Let us restore our republic.

We will only be successful if we convince our elected officials to follow this course. If they do not, we MUST resolve – in every congressional district in this nation – to replace those who refuse to restore the constitutional limits to our government with those who will. It is the duty of every citizen to do his or her part to restore our beloved republic, and it is vital that we act now to restore American liberty before it is too late to do so.

Wake up America! Now is the time to fight for your freedom!

Jim Jess has participated in politics as an activist, writer, and nonprofit organization leader for 30 years. He worked in the office of Governor Sonny Perdue and is a member of several conservative groups. Jim writes for Examiner.com and maintans the website ConstitutionalEducation.org.

Comments (29)

Tags:

Giving the Fed more Unconstitutional Power

Posted on 20 June 2009 by Michael Boldin


Continue Reading

Comments (0)


Follow...


Sponsored Links


Sponsored Links


Tenth Amendment Pledge



Sponsored Links


Categories


Archives