The Campaign for Liberty has stepped to the plate big time in Virginia, getting out ahead of the feds and finding a sponsor for the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, to be introduced in 2010.

The Act reads, in part:

Neither the Governor nor the Department of Health, the Department of Public Welfare or any other Commonwealth agency shall participate in the compliance with any Federal law, regulation or policy that would compromise the freedom of choice in health care of any resident of this Commonwealth.

Man, just copying and pasting that feels great.

Delegate Bob Marshall (VA-13) deserves credit for agreeing to carry this critical legislation. Now is the time for Virginians to start contacting their state representatives to inform them about the measure and ask for their support should ObamaCare make it out of the Senate.

Credit is also due to Delegate Charles Carrico (VA-5), who has agreed to carry the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act, which is similar to recent measures adopted in Tennessee and Montana.

In marked contrast to the health care “reform” legislation recently passed by the House, neither of these bills exceeds three pages.

This is great news for those in Virginia who still cling to the Constitution, but introducing these bills is just the beginning. Victory will require inexhaustible passion and energy since, as always, we must give our state legislators the courage to defend our freedoms.

And it will take political courage. Nancy Pelosi has already said that even if such measures pass at the state level, the federal government has the authority to impose its will upon the voters anyway. Then stick us with the bill, of course.

Try finding that one in the Constitution.

Thanks, but no thanks, Nancy.

Like the signs say: We’ll keep our money, guns, and freedom; you keep the change.

In states around the country, there’s a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution – the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment.  Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.

The latest to join the FFA movement?  Kentucky.  Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law”

While the FFA’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government.  The bills in state houses contain language such as the following:

“federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state] and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”

NULLIFICATION

Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. 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.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010.  Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances.  And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Supporters say the growth of such a movement is long overdue. 

“For far too long elected officials and unelected bureaucrats at the federal level have passively forgotten or actively neglected the Tenth Amendment that guarantees rights not enumerated in the Constitution be left to the individual states,” said Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer, who introduced an FFA in his state. “The willful disregard of the Tenth Amendment in relation to a citizen’s right to bear arms isn’t the only constitutional infringement that we should be worried about, but it is one that has been singled out by the new administration.”

“Enough is enough,” urged Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers. “Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”

LITIGATION

In October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA.  It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

Even the most ardent supporters suggest that the real test will come if the federal courts rule against the FFA.  Will they give up at that point, or will they follow in the footsteps of medical marijuana activists around the country? 

The latter faced down nearly the entire federal apparatus – federal agencies who didn’t recognize state law, countless federal raids and arrests, and a Supreme Court that ruled against their cause in 2005.  Even with such stacked odds, they persisted in their state-level efforts, and today, enough states have medical marijuana laws that the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to oppose them.

Only time will tell if gun rights activists have the same courage.

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

Friend of the Tenth Amendment Center, and executive director of the Liberty Restoration Project, Catherine Bleish, speaking on State Sovereignty at the St. Charles (MO) Tea Party in October, 2009.

Visit her website at http://donttreadoncat.com/

According to a report published on the Tenth Amendment Center’s web site, “Introduced in the Ohio House on October 16, 2009, the ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ (HB-315) seeks ‘To enact section 2923.26 of the Revised Code to provide that ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and remain in Ohio are not subject to federal laws and regulations derived under Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce and to require the words “Made in Ohio” be stamped on a central metallic part of any firearm manufactured and sold in Ohio.’”

The report went on to say, “While the HB315’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. It specifically states:

“‘The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. The congress of the United States has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.’

“Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.”

See the report here.

Two states have already passed their own Firearms Freedom Acts: Montana and Tennessee. And, along with Ohio, at least 7 other states have introduced similar bills. Those states are Alaska, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.

More information regarding the status of these State bills can be seen here.

As you might suspect, the federal government doesn’t take too kindly to these State laws. In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) sent an open letter to all Montana and Tennessee firearms dealers denouncing the State laws. ATF assistant director Carson Carroll wrote that “Federal law supersedes the Act.”

The Tenth Amendment Center quotes constitutional historian Kevin Gutzman as correctly stating, “Their [ATF's] view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”

Ah! But that’s just the problem: the federal government has been ignoring the Constitution for decades–so much so that if there is going to be any restoration of genuine liberty in the country, the states are going to have to stand up to this out-of-control national leviathan and say, “No.” And they are going to have to say it loudly enough for Washington to get the message. And I cannot think of a freedom issue that is better to “draw a line in the sand” for than the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

At the end of the day, the Second Amendment was never about hunting or target shooting. It has always been about protecting the people and states against federal tyranny.

The Second Amendment itself states, “A well regulated Militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” (Emphasis added.) Note that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to insure “the security of a FREE STATE.” (Emphasis added.) “Free from what?” you ask. Free from federal tyranny. Free from an overbearing, encroaching, heavy-handed, would-be national government.

The founders–even the Centralists of the day–all acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms was, first of all, for the protection of the people against government tyranny. Observe:

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Number 29)

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.” (Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville [NC] Gazette, October 12, 1789)

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? . . . Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” (Tench Coxe, ally of James Madison and member of the Continental Congress, Freeman’s Journal, February 20, 1778)

Coxe also said, “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789)

So, for now, 10 states have proposed–and 2 have passed–a Firearms Freedom Act, properly declaring that federal authority granted in the Constitution regarding interstate commerce cannot apply to products (firearms, in this case) that are manufactured and sold within the territory of each respective State. In other words, 10 States are serving notice to Washington, D.C., that they are going to insist that the federal government stop ignoring the Constitution of the United States.

In the same vein, Tennessee State legislator Susan Lynn recently sent an open letter to the State legislative bodies of the other 49 states stating:

“On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:

• Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
• Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
• Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
• Seek repeal of the assumption of the powers and the imposed mandates.”

In the body of her letter, Rep. Lynn states, “The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.”

The Tennessee State representative continued by saying, “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.

“With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty–and unconstitutional.”

See Rep. Lynn’s letter here.

This is a battle that is just beginning to heat up, but promises to get red-hot in the not-too-distant future. As for me and my house, we believe this showdown is long overdue. To quote Patrick Henry, “Let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!”

Chuck Baldwin is a radio broadcaster, syndicated columnist, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the Constitution Party’s Nominee for president in 2008. Visit his website at www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Copyright © 2009 Chuck Baldwin

The bill was authored by State Representatives Morgan and Martin, and currently has 15 other co-sponsors.  (h/t BuckeyeFirearms.org and OhioFreedom.com)

While the HB315’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government.  It specifically states:

The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. The congress of the United States has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.

Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Firearms Freedom Acts have already passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and have been introduced in a number of other states around the country. There’s been no lack of controversy surrounding them, either.  The Tenth Amendment Center recently reported on the ATF’s position that such laws don’t matter:

The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature.  ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:

“Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.”

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”

Advocates of these efforts say it doesn’t matter if the federal government disagrees, or even threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma.  Gary Marbut, author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, and founder of http://www.firearmsfreedomact.com/ took this position in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center:

“We’re not depending on permission from federal judges to be able to effectuate our state-made guns bills.  And, we’re working on other strategies to wrest essential and effective power from the federal government and put it where it belongs.“

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. 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.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010.  Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances.  And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.

While many advocates concede that a federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.

Some say that each successful state-level resistance to federal programs will only embolden others to try the same – resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.

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

The following is a letter from Tennessee to the other 49 State Legislatures

We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly.  On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen.  The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:

• Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
• Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
• Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
• Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.

It is for those purposes that this letter addresses your honorable body.

In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance.  They established a nation of free and independent states.  Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights.  The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.

At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison 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.

There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states.  However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.

The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.

Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.

Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.

To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only.  The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.

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.

With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty – and unconstitutional.

Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.

We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.

Susan Lynn [send her email] is a member of the Tennessee General Assembly; serving on the Commerce Committee and Chairman of the Government Operations committee. She holds a BS in economics and a minor in history. She is the Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Commerce Task Force.  Visit her blog at http://susan-lynn.blogspot.com

Over the past several years, our leaders in Washington — from both political parties — have watched over a major expansion of the size and scope of the federal government.

This has been fueled by excessive regulations, unfunded mandates, multi-billion dollar bailouts and the federalization of banks and other industries.

This growth not only threatens the financial stability of states and local governments and the well-being of future generations of Americans, but violates the very ideals that our country was founded upon.

When our Founding Fathers traveled to Philadelphia in 1787 to draft the Constitution, they came from states as far south as Georgia and as far north as New Hampshire, all with different economies, landscapes and traditions.

Therefore, they fought to preserve their states’ individuality and ensure that the laws of the nation protected the right of each state to govern themselves and make local decisions.

The 10th Amendment reads: “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.”

In other words, the federal government only has certain powers which are spelled out in the Constitution.

Unfortunately, many recent actions by the federal government directly contradict this principle.

For instance, President Obama and many Democrats in Congress continue to champion a cap and trade energy policy that could have a devastating effect on Ohio’s economy, while dramatically raising electricity prices for consumers in our region.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is also pushing excessive regulations on states that would not only increase operating costs for existing Ohio business, but could impact our ability to attract new development and create jobs.

In addition, the President is leading an effort to create a public health care option and give the federal government more control over our nation’s health care system.

Concerned about the increasing influence of the federal government and its impact on the future of our state and Ohio taxpayers, my colleagues and I in the Ohio Senate recently approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, which urges Congress to respect the 10th Amendment and adhere only to the limited rights and responsibilities delegated by the states to the federal government.

I co-sponsored the resolution.

Similar resolutions have been introduced in other states, including New Hampshire, Arizona, Michigan and Missouri.

However, it is important to note that SCR 13 does not threaten secession; it only seeks to affirm Ohio’s sovereignty at a time when the federal government is rapidly expanding.

Former President and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, once said: “The states should be left to do whatever they can do as well as the federal government.”

While all levels of government can serve a valuable purpose in our society, there must be a strong balance between local, state and federal power.

What is good policy for California or New York may not be good for Ohio or West Virginia. For that reason, our leaders in Washington need to honor the 10th Amendment and respect the right of the states to make their own decisions.

Originally published at The Ironton Tribune

John A. Carey is a member of the Ohio Senate and represents the 17th District. He can be reached at Ohio Senate, Statehouse, Columbus, Ohio 43215 or by phone at (614) 466-8156.

By a vote of 19-12 today, the Ohio State Senate passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 (SCR13).  (h/t OhioFreeState.com)

The resolution seeks to “claim sovereignty over certain powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, to notify Congress to limit and end certain mandates, and to insist that federal legislation contravening the Tenth Amendment be prohibited or repealed.”

If passed by the House of Representatives, Ohio will become the 8th state to have passed such a resolution in 2009.  Other states that have reaffirmed their sovereignty are Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee.

While sovereignty resolutions do not carry the force of law behind them, supporters say that they are a long-overdue first step in moving the country towards constitutional government.

Charles Key, state representative from Oklahoma and author of that state’s sovereignty resolution, compared these resolutions to a cease and desist notice a landlord gives a non-paying tenant.

“If you’ve got a tenant that’s not paying rent, you don’t just show up one day with an empty truck,” said Key in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center.  “First, you serve notice.  That’s how we see these resolutions, as a notice to the federal government.  And there defintely will be follow up.”

The follow up that Rep. Key is referring to has been popping up all over the country.  Legislation that calls upon the Jeffersonian principle of “nullification” has already been advancing a number of causes, and some success has been gained, too.

A state-level rebellion to the Bush-era Real ID act has rendered the law virtually null and void.  Thirteen states have passed various marijuana laws in direct contravention to federal laws.  Two states have passed laws nullifying some federal gun regulations.

Groups in multiple states are pushing their governments to withdraw their state’s guard troops from Iraq and elsewhere. And people in up to 10 states may have the opportunity to vote on state constitutional amendments effectively banning national health care.

The long-term success of all these efforts remain to be seen, especially with a Federal Judiciary which has not often been too friendly to the Constitutional intent of the Founders and Ratifiers.

But, many supporters point to the growing success on issues like Real ID and Medical Marijuana as examples which prove that with enough state-level resistance, the federal government has no option but to back off, with or without judicial approval.

Read the full text of SCR-13 below:

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: “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”; and

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment signifies that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are often treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Many federal laws directly contravene the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, We believe in the importance of all levels of government working together to serve the citizens of our country, by respecting the constitutional provisions that properly delineate the authority of federal, state, and local governments; and

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, states in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states by compelling them to enact and enforce regulatory programs; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in Printz v. United States/Mack v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), reaffirmed that the Constitution of the United States established a system of “dual sovereignty” that retains “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty” by the states. The majority of the United States Supreme Court noted in that case (521 U.S. 898, 921-922):

“As [President] Madison expressed it: ‘[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.’ The Federalist No. 39, at 245.

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’ . . . To quote [President] Madison once again:

‘In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. 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 No. 51, at 323″; and

WHEREAS, A number of proposals by previous administrations, some now pending proposals by the present administration, and some proposals by Congress may further violate the Tenth Amendment restriction on the scope of federal power; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the State of Ohio hereby acknowledges and reaffirms its residuary and inviolable 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 Constitution of the United States; and be it further

RESOLVED, That this resolution serves as notice to the federal government as agent of the states, to end federal mandates that are beyond the scope of the constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further

RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalty or sanction or that requires states to enact legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the Senate transmit authenticated copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature, and each member of the Ohio Congressional delegation.

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

(Lansing, MI) – Today, September 17th is Constitution Day.  In a fitting tribute, Senator Bruce Patterson’s resolutions affirming Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government were passed unanimously in Senate session today.

The United States Constitution was completed and signed at the Philadelphia Convention on September 17, 1787.  Senator Patterson’s Senate Resolution 17 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 4 are reminders that the founding fathers knew what was best when they established that our new country needed a commitment to the rule of law, limited government and the ideals of liberty, equality and justice for all.

Senator Patterson introduced these resolutions because our country is straying away from our founding fathers’ ideals.  The Senator’s resolutions specifically affirm the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.  This part of the Bill of Rights specifies that each state should be able to decide what is best for their people.

“My reasons for so strongly stating my belief in the Tenth Amendment through these resolutions is that our federal government is becoming oppressive in size and is intruding in our lives,” Senator Patterson emphasized.

“Our founding fathers decided that the country would be established on the sovereignty of the states. Our voices need to be heard, we will not stand by while our rights are stripped away.  It was great to see that my Senate colleagues concurred. ”

Similar resolutions have been introduced in 36 other states.

Senator Patterson made an impassioned speech regarding his Senate resolutions today.  Look for the video to be posted on his website in the coming days at www.senatorbrucepatterson.com

###

Both resolutions passed by a vote of 33-0.  Read the text of each below:

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4.

A concurrent resolution to affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government.

Whereas, The Tenth Amendment provides that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. The Tenth Amendment limits the scope of federal power and prescribes that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states. Currently, the states are treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the United States Congress may not commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states. By this resolution Michigan claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment over all powers not granted to the federal government under the United States Constitution; and

Whereas, All government agencies and their agents and employees operating within the geographic boundaries of the state of Michigan, or whose actions have an effect on the inhabitants, lands, or water of Michigan, shall operate within the confines of the original intent of the Constitution of the United States or be subject to penalty of law as provided for now or in the future within the Constitution of the state of Michigan, the Michigan statutes, or the common law. This resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as Michigan’s agent, to cease and desist immediately all mandates that are beyond the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally delegated powers; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That we affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

Senate Resolution No. 17.

A resolution to affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government.

Whereas, The Tenth Amendment provides that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. The Tenth Amendment limits the scope of federal power and prescribes that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states. Currently, the states are treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the United States Congress may not commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states. By this resolution Michigan claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment over all powers not granted to the federal government under the United States Constitution; and

Whereas, All government agencies and their agents and employees operating within the geographic boundaries of the state of Michigan, or whose actions have an effect on the inhabitants, lands, or water of Michigan, shall operate within the confines of the original intent of the Constitution of the United States or be subject to penalty of law as provided for now or in the future within the Constitution of the state of Michigan, the Michigan statutes, or the common law. This resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as Michigan’s agent, to cease and desist immediately all mandates that are beyond the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally delegated powers; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate, That we affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

After gambling his young presidency on an ambitious domestic agenda, Barack Obama’s political insecurity and ideological arrogance now demand passage of a health care “reform” bill that will vastly increase the federal government’s role in the lives of American citizens. This could be accomplished in a number of ways, from a Trojan Horse compromise to the so-called “nuclear option” of budgetary reconciliation. But make no mistake, it will be accomplished; despite the vocal protestations of voters across the country.

Look carefully though. Deaf to budget warnings and terrified of a minor legislative loss, the Obama administration and its statist allies in Congress may inadvertently be committing a much larger strategic error.

Their miscalculation stems from a failure to recognize the true nature of President Obama’s electoral mandate last fall. Certainly plenty of Americans share his leftist world view, but many more Obama voters, especially the independents who have since abandoned him in droves, voted for his fiscally conservative platform of efficient government, lower taxes, and more transparency. With each passing day, it becomes increasingly obvious that is not the change they got.

Instead, the eloquent centrist Americans thought they elected has been replaced by a haughty cuadillo who demands that we all shut up and get on board with his various social engineering schemes. And always, despite the abysmal economic track record of government, his plans call for more federal control over private industry, including our single-most important industry: Health care.

However, ripping a page from the Bush playbook of condescension and demagoguery is not the way for Obama to gain trust the trust he needs. Heavy handed federal policy turns voters off even in the best of times, and these are clearly not the best of times.

Outrage over decades of bipartisan waste, fraud, and corruption has been on display for the last six months, and widespread fear over the federal government’s motives has driven millions of previously apathetic citizens to vocal and vehement political activism for the very first time.

But the president still doesn’t get it. Obama expects us to continue watching quietly from the sidelines while he arrogates enormous power to himself, tramples constitutional freedom, and then waits to be lionized by history. After all, that strategy has worked for virtually every president since Lincoln.

It won’t work this time. If and when President Obama forces through his health care bill, it could trigger a backlash already simmering at the state level that neither he nor his colleagues in Congress seem to have seriously contemplated: A popular push for state level nullification.

These days, nullification is an obsolete and misunderstood term, ostensibly discredited as a viable policy option more than a century ago by four years of bloody Civil War.

But 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.

Already, state legislators from Arizona to Florida to Georgia have proposed measures to nullify unconstitutional aspects of any federal health care law. Which, in all likelihood, would mean pretty much the entirety of H.R. 3200. But even more intriguing is the precedent a nullification fight would set and the confidence it would build for those in the liberty movement.

For years Americans have watched helplessly while the Supreme Court sat as binding arbiter in constitutional disagreements, essentially permitting the federal government to dictate the limits of its own power. And, predictably, the limits on that power have been few.

But once citizens understand that they can circumvent a power-hungry Congress and its enablers on the court by demanding their state governments step up and nullify unconstitutional laws, entrenched abuses of every sort could come crashing down.

Admittedly, that future is still a long way off, and reaching it will require a sustained effort and focus by small government activists heretofore unseen. But more of those activists are finding their voices every day, and no matter what happens in the coming weeks with regard to health care, recent events suggest a major power decentralization may already be underway.

Josh is a freelance writer and journalist originally from the Washington D.C. area. He is a cynically optimistic and unrepentant news junkie. His work has been published locally and in Charleston, SC. Email Josh.