<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Tenth Amendment Center &#187; Video</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com</link>
	<description>Working to limit the power of the federal government</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:59:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Understanding State Sovereignty</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/11/11/understanding-state-sovereignty/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/11/11/understanding-state-sovereignty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:38:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tenth Amendment</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[State Sovereignty Movement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catherine Bleisch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Missouri Sovereignty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3636</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
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/
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><object width="340" height="280"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DXyvPwq-u9Q&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DXyvPwq-u9Q&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="280"></embed></object><span id="more-3636"></span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Visit her website at <a href="http://donttreadoncat.com/">http://donttreadoncat.com/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/11/11/understanding-state-sovereignty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Getting the Supremacy Clause Wrong</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/30/getting-the-supremacy-clause-wrong/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/30/getting-the-supremacy-clause-wrong/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:02:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Boldin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supremacy Clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Plan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3554</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Michael Boldin
A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>by Michael Boldin</em></p>
<p>A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan have already introduced similar legislation, and potentially, 15 other states will do so in the 2010 legislative session.</p>
<p>But here’s something fundamentally important that NYT writer Monica Davey claims in her article:</p>
<p><em>…the Constitution’s supremacy clause ordinarily allows federal law to, in essence, trump a state law that conflicts with it…</em></p>
<p>A best, this is a highly-misleading statement.</p>
<p>There are two main points to make here:</p>
<p>1. The “supremacy clause” does <strong>not </strong>allow federal law to trump state law in <strong>all </strong>situations, or even “ordinarily” as Davey claims.  It only does so when both laws are in pursuance of a power that has been delegated to the federal government by “We the People.” – in the Constitution.</p>
<p>2. We know that this is the case because Monica’s version of the supremacy clause was actually proposed by leading founders – and rejected. When the Constitution was being drafted, James Madison and others proposed what came to be known as the “Virginia Plan.” A major part of this plan was to give the congress a veto over state laws. It was defeated. That means, in plain English, the founders considered this idea, and said no.  And Davey is irrefutably wrong in her claim. </p>
<p>So we know from this short lesson that the supremacy clause did <strong>not </strong>authorize the power that Davey is claiming. In reality, things are pretty much the other way around.  The biggest Constitutional problems that actually exist in this country are those times when the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it by “We the People.”  And that happens far more often than not.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, though, not enough people know this important history of the Virginia Plan, and this basic premise of the Constitution, so they’re easily swayed by patently false statements by people like Davey and the New York Times.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/30/getting-the-supremacy-clause-wrong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/audio/youtube/boldin-supremacy-clause-101609.mp3" length="3019157" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>States&#8217; Rights: The Unknown History</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/23/states-rights-the-unknown-history/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/23/states-rights-the-unknown-history/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:05:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tenth Amendment</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nullification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state Sovereignty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3499</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[

Thomas Woods in the third in a series of ten lectures, presented at “The Truth About American History: An Austro-Jeffersonian Perspective” seminar, hosted by the Mises Institute. Recorded 06/21/2005.
Part 1.  Part 2.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><object width="340" height="280" data="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-306980173713337153&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="id" value="VideoPlayback" /><param name="src" value="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-306980173713337153&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=true" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object></p>
<p><span id="more-3499"></span></p>
<p>Thomas Woods in the third in a series of ten lectures, presented at “The Truth About American History: An Austro-Jeffersonian Perspective” seminar, hosted by the Mises Institute. Recorded 06/21/2005.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/03/01/thomas-jefferson-and-the-principles-of-98/">Part 1</a>.  <a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/03/26/states-rights-in-theory-and-practice/">Part 2</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/23/states-rights-the-unknown-history/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rockwell, Napolitano Talk Nullification</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/17/rockwell-napolitano-talk-nullification/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/17/rockwell-napolitano-talk-nullification/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:44:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tenth Amendment</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[State Sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nullification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secession]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3453</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[

On FreedomWatch, Andrew Napolitano and Lew Rockwell talk about the principles of Nullification, Secession and Interposition.
If the federal government were trying to do something within a state that was unconstitutional, the state government could say &#8211; you have no jurisdiction to do something illegal within our state.
Nullification has a long history in the American tradition, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><object width="340" height="280"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EL-JgsTGI3w&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EL-JgsTGI3w&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="280"></embed></object><br />
<span id="more-3453"></span><br />
On FreedomWatch, Andrew Napolitano and Lew Rockwell talk about the principles of Nullification, Secession and Interposition.</p>
<p>If the federal government were trying to do something within a state that was unconstitutional, the state government could say &#8211; you have no jurisdiction to do something illegal within our state.</p>
<p>Nullification has a long history in the American tradition, and as Napolitano points out, it was used in Massachusetts to resist the abhorrent federal fugitive slave act in the 19th century.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s a strong nullification movement growing in the states today. </p>
<p>Learn more about it here:<br />
<a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/17/rockwell-napolitano-talk-nullification/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Getting the 10th Amendment Right</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/10/getting-the-10th-amendment-right/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/10/getting-the-10th-amendment-right/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:46:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tenth Amendment</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[10th Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state Sovereignty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3365</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[

by Rob Natelson
Effectively defending American federalism requires us to remember that federalism was not created by the states – nor was it created for state benefit.
Federalism was fashioned by the American people – for the benefit of individuals and of the people as a whole.  Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, possibly the most eminent defender [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><object width="340" height="280" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Y3rZfeEEjo&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Y3rZfeEEjo&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object><br />
<span id="more-3365"></span></p>
<p><em>by Rob Natelson</em></p>
<p>Effectively defending American federalism requires us to remember that federalism was not created by the states – nor was it created for state benefit.</p>
<p>Federalism was fashioned by the American people – for the benefit of individuals and of the people as a whole.  Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, possibly the most eminent defender of the Tenth Amendment to sit on the modern Supreme Court, put it this way:</p>
<p><em>The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/22/its-the-peoples-right/">CLICK HERE TO READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE</a></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/10/getting-the-10th-amendment-right/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/audio/youtube/natelson-peoples-right-100509.mp3" length="9492480" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federalism, Freedom and the Constitution</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/02/federalism-freedom-and-the-constitution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/02/federalism-freedom-and-the-constitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:41:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tenth Amendment</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decentralization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drug War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[

by Josh Eboch
Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, no single ideological camp could wield sufficient power to impose a set of beliefs on the entire country.
Which was exactly the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><object width="340" height="280"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xDAwQaL22K8&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xDAwQaL22K8&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="280"></embed></object><br />
<span id="more-3268"></span></p>
<p><em>by Josh Eboch</em></p>
<p>Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, no single ideological camp could wield sufficient power to impose a set of beliefs on the entire country.</p>
<p>Which was exactly the point of our federalist system, and of the 10th Amendment. Beyond specific, enumerated federal powers, an infinite number of issues were intentionally left to the authority of the people through their state governments. And it is to the states that liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians must address all questions extending beyond the constitutional purview of federal authority.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/01/the-constitution-its-not-just-for-conservatives/">Click Here to Read the Full Article</a></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/02/federalism-freedom-and-the-constitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/eboch-092809.mp3" length="11333376" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nancy Pelosi: Wrong on Health Care</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/23/nancy-pelosi-wrong-on-health-care/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/23/nancy-pelosi-wrong-on-health-care/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:34:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tenth Amendment</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commerce-clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nancy-pelosi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3097</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[

by Rob Natelson &#8211; original article posted 09-17-09
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has issued a press release in which she purports to rebut those of us who have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of some health care reform plans.
Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) claims:
&#8220;The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><object width="340" height="280" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/wzbOZ6E-9zY&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wzbOZ6E-9zY&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object><span id="more-3097"></span></p>
<div>
<p><em>by Rob Natelson &#8211; </em><em><a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/17/pelosis-misleading-statement-on-the-constitutionality-of-government-health-care/">original article posted 09-17-09</a></em></p>
<p>Speaker Nancy Pelosi has issued a <a href="http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&amp;STORY=/www/story/09-16-2009/0005095601&amp;EDATE=" target="_blank">press release</a> in which she purports to rebut those of us who have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of some health care reform plans.</p>
<p>Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) claims:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>&#8220;The <a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com">10th amendment</a></em><em> to the U.S. Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states&#8230; or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. <strong>Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. </strong>(bolded in original).</em></p>
<p>For several reasons, this is a <a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/18/is-obamacare-constitutional/">highly misleading statement</a>.</p>
<p>First, it fails to mention a concern expressed by many constitutional scholars, including those on the Left: Substantive due process.</p>
<p>&#8220;Substantive due process&#8221; is the doctrine by which the Supreme Court strikes down laws it deems unacceptably interfere with personal privacy or autonomy. Health care laws that, for example, limit one’s ability to fund and control one’s own health care could well run afoul of substantive due process rules.</p>
<p>Second, the statement fails to mention that, while the Supreme Court has upheld many delegations of power from Congress to executive branch agencies, the Court has affirmed repeatedly that there are limits. Some health care proposals involve wider delegations of authority than any since the New Deal’s National Reconstruction Adminisration (NRA) &#8212; which was invalidated by a unanimous Court.</p>
<p>Third, the Pelosi release disregards the fact that on several occasions the modern Supreme Court has struck down overreaching federal legislation, supposedly adopted under the Commerce Power. Also, on several occasions, the Court has interpreted congressional acts narrowly to avoid constitutional conflicts.</p>
<p>Fourth: Pelosi (or her speechwriter) clearly misstate the current Supreme Court’s test for laws under the Constitution’s <a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/20/claiming-almost-everything-is-commerce/">Commerce Power</a>. The statement that Congress can regulate &#8220;activities that have an effect on interstate commerce&#8221; should be that Congress can regulate &#8220;economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.&#8221; Non-economic activities, such as some health care decisions, would have to meet a much stricter test. This may seem to be a minor mistake, but for legal purposes it is an important one, and one that, for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, is not easily excusable.</p>
<p>Finally, Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) commits the mistake of failing to look at wider judicial trends. One of these trends is the long-term movement by the Supreme Court toward interpreting the Constitution according to its real meaning – the original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers.</p>
<p>And virtually no knowledgeable person thinks government health care is constitutional under that standard.</p>
<p><em>Rob Natelson is Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar.  (See </em><a href="http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm" target="_blank"><em>www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm</em></a><em>.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.</em></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/23/nancy-pelosi-wrong-on-health-care/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/natelson-091709.mp3" length="4262160" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The 10-4 Pledge for the Constitution</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/17/the-10-4-pledge-for-the-constitution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/17/the-10-4-pledge-for-the-constitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 07:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Boldin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Founding Principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[10-4 Pledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3054</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[

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 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><object width="340" height="280" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/4nOFN-t1zI0&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4nOFN-t1zI0&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object></p>
<p><span id="more-3054"></span></p>
<p><em>by Michael Boldin</em></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>What does this have to do with September 17th, Constitution Day?</p>
<p>everything.</p>
<p>The Constitution of the United States was a revolutionary document. &#8220;Before it, no government in history had seen its duties and restrictions so clearly and carefully defined&#8221;</p>
<p>When it was being considered for ratification, there was strong opposition from famous American figures that included George Mason and Patrick Henry. &#8220;One major reason for this was a fear of too much power</p>
<p>The founding generation spent their lives toiling under a tyranny &#8211; 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 &#8211; that &#8216;We the People of the Several States&#8217; created the government, and all powers not delegated to it, were retained.&#8221;</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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&#8217;s just the opposite of how things are today.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>That&#8217;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.</p>
<p>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 &#8220;All just political authority is derived from the People,&#8221; and a promise that elected officials will always vote &#8220;in favor of the Constitution of the United States. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.&#8221;</p>
<p>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 &#8211; the Texas Sovereignty Resolution.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>So this Constitution Day take a new pledge. Ignore and resist the federal overnment. Its as worthless as it is dangerous.</p>
<p><em>Michael Boldin [</em><a href="mailto:info@tenthamendmentcenter.com"><em>send him email</em></a><em>] is the founder of the </em><a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank"><em>Tenth Amendment Center</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p>Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/17/the-10-4-pledge-for-the-constitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/boldin-091409.mp3" length="4247808" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Opting out of National Health Care in GA?</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/15/opting-out-of-national-health-care-in-ga/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/15/opting-out-of-national-health-care-in-ga/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:13:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Boldin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia Sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national-health-care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nullification]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2986</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[

Georgia State Senator Chip Rogers wants to propose a State Constitutional Amendment to GA voters so, if passed, residents don&#8217;t have to participate in government-run health care
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><object width="340" height="280" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/UBQXYkt1p-g&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UBQXYkt1p-g&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object></p>
<p><span id="more-2986"></span></p>
<p>Georgia State Senator Chip Rogers wants to propose a State Constitutional Amendment to GA voters so, if passed, residents don&#8217;t have to participate in government-run health care</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/15/opting-out-of-national-health-care-in-ga/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is ObamaCare Constitutional?</title>
		<link>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/11/is-obamacare-constitutional-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/11/is-obamacare-constitutional-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:03:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Boldin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Enumerated Powers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3011</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[

Andrew Napolitano: &#8220;There are limited, delegated and discreet powers of Congress in the Contitution&#8230;how can the government take over health care and still comply with the Constitution?&#8221;
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><object width="340" height="280" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/ADVJ0GJ0N2g&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ADVJ0GJ0N2g&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object></p>
<p><span id="more-3011"></span></p>
<p>Andrew Napolitano: &#8220;There are limited, delegated and discreet powers of Congress in the Contitution&#8230;how can the government take over health care and still comply with the Constitution?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/11/is-obamacare-constitutional-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
