The recent election results in Virginia and New Jersey – representing in part a strong repudiation of the threats to freedom over the past year – have energized many pro-liberty activists. It is imperative that we keep the pressure on.

But we can be sure the other side will try to trick us into damaging statements in order to discredit us, or lure us into time-wasting strategies.

So here are a few things to remember:

* Let’s keep our eye on the ball. The ultimate goal of most in the Tenth Amendment movement is to restore constitutional limits to the federal government. Our Constitution – not any peripheral or personal causes – is what we are working for.

* Swarm, swarm, swarm. The focus for the short-term has to be continue to “swarm” our elected representatives, get in their faces, and tell them over and over that more deficit spending or tax increases are simply unacceptable. So also is any major expansion of government control, particularly a takeover of heath care.

* Restoring limits on the feds. The focus long-term has to be one or more constitutional amendments to put the federal government’s house back in order and protect future generations from the kinds of assaults on our freedom we have faced over the last year. When a system breaks down, sometimes you have to patch up to set it right — just as our fathers and grandfathers adopted the 22nd Amendment to re-establish the two-term presidential tradition that Franklin Roosevelt had disregarded. That’s our situation now.

* 2010 elections. The focus medium-term is now the 2010 elections – not just for Congress, but particularly on the state level. This is because constitutional amendments to curb Congress’s powers are probably not going to come from Congress. The states will have to use the Constitution’s state-proposal procedure.

* Don’t let the bad guys marginalize you. Talk of actions such as secession suggest that we are the ones willing to destroy our constitutional system – when in fact the opposition has that dubious distinction.

* Work smart. The other side has a lot of people who work full-time in politics or who work for the government, which sometimes amounts to nearly the same thing. That’s in addition to Soros money. So we have to carefully husband our resources – devote your time and energy only to things that make sense in view of our goals.

* Don’t waste your time on stupid or impossible causes. Here are a few causes that are certain time-wasters: (1) impeaching Obama (impossible while the Dems control Congress, even assuming there are grounds to do so), (2) recalling U.S. Senators or Congressmen before their terms are up (there is no recall procedure authorized by the Constitution or federal law), and (3) secession movements (which, besides conceding the Constitution to the other side, overlooks the fact that they have the nuclear weapons).

* Again, keep your eyes on the ball – restore the Constitution. That means letters to the editor, candidate identification, working in the political party of your choice, fundraising, keeping in touch with others in the Tenth Amendment movement, and educating yourself by visiting great websites like the Tenth Amendment Center.

Rob Natelson is a constitutional law professor at the University of Montana, and runner-up in the 2000 “open primary” for Governor of Montana. His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.

There is an on-going debate about the extent to the First Amendment bars congressional campaign finance limits. That debate is important, but it doesn’t address a more fundamental question: What empowers Congress to regulate congressional campaign finance at all?

Remember that the Constitution gives Congress only the powers the Constitution lists. All other powers are reserved to the states and people by the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

Regulation of campaign finance is said to be part of Congress’s power to govern the “Manner” of congressional elections under the Time, Manner, and Place Clause (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1).  That provision says the states shall prescribe “the Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” but that Congress may (with one restriction) “make or alter such Regulations.”

This past summer, I investigated to find out what the Founders meant by the “Manner of holding Elections.” I found a lot of evidence, most of it unexamined by prior researchers. Interestingly, almost all the evidence suggests Congress was not given power to regulate campaign finance. That was a power reserved to the states and the people.

State regulations of the “Manner of holding Elections” were already quite common when the Constitution was adopted. Although the precise scope of the phrase “Manner of holding Elections” varied somewhat, its widest meaning was not broad enough to include campaign finance laws. And the Constitution’s use of the phrase was narrower than the widest meaning.

As the Constitution used the phrase, it meant to regulate the voting: that is, to specify what officer was to oversee elections, who was to do the counting, how results were to be recorded, whether open or secret ballots were used, whether the winner needed a majority or only a plurality, and the like.

That’s not all.

During the ratification fight, advocates of the Constitution were insistent in assuring the public that this power of Congress was quite narrow. They explained that the power would be exercised rarely, and only to correct serious state abuses, and that its principal purpose was to enable the federal government to preserve itself if one or more states refused to hold federal elections.

To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never reached a direct conclusion about this evidence one way or another.

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

by Michael Boldin

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

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

everything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nearing election time again, we are reminded that the there are no checks and balances available to the states over federal power or over Congress itself in any area. However, in the history of our country, it was not always this way. In the original design by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, there was an effective check on Congress through the state legislatures’ power to appoint (and remove) United States Senators.

As such, the core of the problem with state’s rights issues lies in the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which abrogated the state legislatures’ right to appoint United States Senators in favor of popular election of those officials. This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result, over time, in expanding federal control in every area.

The 17th Amendment caused a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal control over a number of state institutions.

The amendment has also caused a fundamental breakdown in campaign finance issues with respect to United States Senators. As to United States Senators, campaign finance reform, a hot topic in Congress now, can be best achieved by repealing the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It should be readily apparent that United States Senators, once appointed by the state legislature, would have no need for campaign financing whatsoever.

The reason for the passage of the 17th Amendment should be stated. The 17th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate.

For instance, in the very first Congress, the State of New York went without representation in the Senate for three months. Additionally, numerous other problems resulted from the efforts to resolve individual deadlocks. The problem of deadlocked legislatures continued unabated from 1787 until 1913.

The 17th amendment, calling for popular election of senators, fixed the procedural problems, but also inappropriately and unintentionally altered the balance of power. Instead, the 17th Amendment should have fixed the procedural problems and left the balance of power between the states and the federal government intact.

The 17th Amendment should be repealed. This would reinstate the states’ linkage to the federal political process and would, thereby, have the effect of elevating the present status of the state legislatures from that of lobbyists, to that of a partner in the federal political process. The state legislatures would then have the ability to decentralize power when appropriate.

It would give state legislatures direct influence over the selection of federal judges and the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and much greater ability to modify the power of the federal judiciary. This structure would allow the flow of power between the states and the federal government to ebb and flow as the needs of our federal republic change.

The existing relationship, combined with the effect of the Supremacy Clause, is guaranteed to concentrate power into the hands of the federal government with little or no hope of return. The resulting issue surrounding the fracas between the states and federal government is whether the states or the federal government should be exercising a particular power.

The impact of the 17th Amendment upon that issue and the states’ present ability to exercise the original power granted to them by the Framers of our Constitution is clear.

A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, designed to repeal the 17th Amendment, follows:

AN AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT AND RELINK THE STATES TO THE FEDERAL POLITICAL PROCESS

SECTION ONE. The Seventeenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

SECTION TWO. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, selected by the legislature of each State. Each Senator shall serve a six year term and may be reappointed. Each Senator shall have one vote.

SECTION THREE. Among the duties of each Senator is the primary duty to represent the government of their State, and in particular, their State’s Legislature, in the Senate. For the purpose of maintaining communications with its Senators, each State Legislature shall establish a liaison committee and shall specify the duties, procedures, and method of appointment of that committee. This committee shall work with its United States Senators in evaluating the impact of federal legislation on their State. All legislation proposed by Congress, and all treaties proposed, shall be submitted to each State’s liaison committee.

SECTION FOUR. Senators are subject to removal by the State Legislature. Removal of a Senator requires a majority of each House of the State Legislature.

SECTION FIVE. Congress is precluded from enacting any legislation affecting the senatorial selection process. Each State Legislature shall enact rules and procedures, consistent with this amendment, related to the selection and removal of Senators.

SECTION SIX. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures.

The Republican platform unveiled last week notes in passing that “the Constitution assigns the federal government no role in local education.” Yet the same document offers opinions on all manner of local educational issues, including the virtues of phonics, the evils of sex education, the wisdom of merit pay for teachers, and the folly of social promotion.

That contradiction illustrates the hollowness of the Republican commitment to “constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions.” The Republicans (like the Democrats) respect the Constitution only when it’s convenient.

You might say that’s old news. Yet while campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan promised to abolish the Department of Education. So did Bob Dole in 1996. After two terms of a Republican president who proudly charged in the opposite direction, the most John McCain can muster is a promise to “identify and eliminate ineffective programs”—that is, to make unconstitutional activities more efficient.

Although the Department of Education is still with us, by threatening to eliminate it Reagan and like-minded Republicans signaled that they understood some matters are beyond the purview of the federal government. It’s hard to find evidence of that understanding in the current GOP platform.

In 1887 Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, vetoed a bill allocating $10,000 to help drought-stricken farmers in Texas, saying, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” Nowadays the Republican Party takes for granted the propriety of both “a natural disaster insurance policy” and an “economic safety net for farmers.”

Likewise, the GOP platform does not question the legitimacy of the federal government’s enormous entitlement programs, saying only that they should be “reformed” and “modernized.” Regarding Social Security, McCain does not go even as far as George W. Bush, who proposed letting Americans shift some of their payroll taxes to private accounts. By contrast, the current platform calls for “personal investment accounts which are distinct from and supplemental to” the existing system of intergenerational income redistribution.

Far from shrinking the federal government, the Republicans want to enlarge it, providing “aid to those hurt by the housing crisis,” solving “the energy crisis” (undeterred by the Carteresque connotations of that phrase), “expanding access to higher education,” seeking “a major expansion of support” for certain kinds of stem cell research, even “returning Americans to the moon as a step toward a mission to Mars.” The platform does not explain how these initiatives qualify as “legitimate constitutional functions.”

The Republicans are committed to “continuing the fight against illegal drugs,” even though that fight, unlike alcohol prohibition, was never authorized by a constitutional amendment. They want to impose national bans on gay marriage, human cloning, assisted suicide, and online gambling, even while declaring that “Congress must respect the limits imposed by the Tenth Amendment,” which reserves to the states or the people “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” Despite their eagerness to trample individual freedom in all these areas, Republicans claim “the other party wants more government control over people’s lives,” but “Republicans do not.”

The Republicans “lament that judges have denied the people their right to set abortion policies in the states.” Yet their position that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life” guaranteed by the 14th Amendment implies that the Constitution not only allows but requires a national ban on abortion, which also would override state policy choices.

Defending “the free-speech right to devote one’s resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports,” the Republicans say they “oppose any restrictions or conditions upon those activities that would discourage Americans from exercising their constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit their commitment to their ideals.” Yet their presidential nominee is famous for pushing precisely such restrictions and conditions in the name of “campaign finance reform.”

As an indicator of where McCain would take the country after eight years of big-government conservatism, the 2008 Republican platform is not just disappointing. It’s incoherent.

© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

• I believe that no one — including the President — is above the law.
• I oppose all forms of torture, and I support both closing the Guantánamo Bay prison and ending indefinite detention.
• I oppose warrantless spying.
• I believe that government officials, no matter how high-ranking, should be held accountable for breaking the law and violating the Constitution.
• I believe that the Constitution protects every person’s rights equally — no matter what they believe, how they live, where or if they worship, and whom they love.
• I reject the notion that we have to tolerate violations of our most fundamental rights in the name of fighting terrorism.
• I am deeply committed to the Constitution and expect our country’s leaders to share and act on that commitment — every day, without fail.

If you agree, click here.

Take a refreshing look at the Constitution here.

The Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, and limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory:

• First Amendment: addresses the rights of freedom of religion (prohibiting Congressional establishment of a religion over another religion through Law and protecting the right to free exercise of religion), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition.

• Second Amendment: defines the right of States in keeping and maintaining militias and the right of individuals to possess firearms.

• Third Amendment: prohibits the government from using private homes as quarters for soldiers during peacetime without the consent of the owners. The only existing case law regarding this amendment is a lower court decision in the case of Engblom v. Carey.^[15]

• Fourth Amendment: guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a “probable cause” to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy have been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court.

• Fifth Amendment: forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; prohibits double jeopardy (repeated trials), except in certain very limited circumstances; forbids punishment without due process of law; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself (this is also known as “Taking the Fifth” or “Pleading the Fifth”). This is regarded as the “rights of the accused” amendment, otherwise known as the Miranda rights after the Supreme Court case. It also prohibits government from taking private property without “just compensation,” the basis of eminent domain in the United States.

• Sixth Amendment: guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury, guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. The Sixth Amendment has several court cases associated with it, including Powell v. Alabama, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Crawford v. Washington. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment prohibition on forced self-incrimination and the sixth amendment clause on right to counsel were to be made known to all persons placed under arrest, and these clauses have become known as the Miranda rights.

• Seventh Amendment: assures trial by jury in civil cases.
• Eighth Amendment: forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.
• Ninth Amendment: declares that the listing of individual rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; and that the other rights not specifically mentioned are retained elsewhere by the people.
• Tenth Amendment: provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the States from exercising, are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  ~ From Wikipedia

Know your rights. Protect them by voting accordingly.