Tenth Amendment Center

The arguments against the power of the states to arrest federal tyranny are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning, and they generally start with Marbury.

In this podcast, Rob Natelson, recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, talks about how the Supreme Court allowed the Federal Government in the late 1930s to drastically change the way the US Constitution is interpreted, the Necessary and Proper clause and incidental powers, and more…

the federal government is not the source of our freedom; the states have the duty to resist the encroachments of federal usurpation; and freedom can be restored when the Confederate Republic is restored.

If asked, who has the final say in our government on the meaning of the Constitution, most people would say, the Supreme Court, but it this right?

To understand the debate in this topic, it helps to briefly review constitutional history. When the Constitution was first proposed, opponents of the new document criticized it for lacking a bill of enumerated rights, which were common in virtually every state constitution of the time.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s comment at Duke Law School that the U.S. Court of Appeals “makes policy” has received a lot of attention, and deservedly so. Understanding what prompted her remark is key to understanding what has happened to our Constitution in the modern era.

Where the Constitution needs to be changed, it should be amended through the process provided in the Constitution, not through a judicial edict.

Jefferson argues against exclusive judiciary construction; he felt it would undermine the principle of checks and balances

With its decision in Nordyke v. King last week, in which the recent Supreme Court Heller decision was applied to state law, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took another step down the long road of “incorporating” the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In doing so, it continued down the path toward completely inverting the model of government to which The People agreed when they ratified the Constitution.

Cross-Posted from DailyKos.com with permission of the author, Crashing Vor
Watching Keith [Olbermann] just now, I heard him mention Antonin “Nino” Scalia’s dissenting opinion from today’s ruling in regards habeas corpus rights for detainees.
The lowlight of Justice Scalia’s opinion was the paragraph:
“The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will [...]