Tag Archive: Tenth Amendment Center


Tenth Amendment Center

 

 

“It doesn’t matter who’s in charge , federal power always grows.”

NULLIFY! —> http://bit.ly/18XcVan “

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About these ads

Article V Movement Gathers Steam, Critics Seethe

 

 

Amending The Constitution

 

 

” One of the sure signs that your federal government is in a state of disarray is when record numbers of Americans begin turning to the U.S. Constitution to figure out just where it all went wrong. Until recently, these readers might have skipped right past Article V, not noticing that therein lies the most potent of solutions.

  As readers of Mark Levin’s book The Liberty Amendments have learned, Article V includes a lesser-known means by which the states can propose amendments. This was precisely the method the founders intended to be used to check an expansionist federal government.

  Thanks to Levin, ConventionofStates.com, and Lawrence Lessig’s CallaConvention.org, the effort to get state legislatures to demand the first ever amendments convention seems to be hitting its stride.

  But the movement is not without its critics.

  Enter constitutional speaker KrisAnne Hall, who would prefer that states engage in out-and-out nullification of unconstitutional federal overreaches. Though less clear constitutionally, the idea has precedent and is also advocated by the Tenth Amendment Center. But unlike the Tenth Amendment Center, Ms. Hall has decided that an Article V amendments convention competes with nullification, and has taken the position that an amendments convention is a road to disaster because she has discovered a clandestine plot by Congress to take over the amendments convention process from start to finish.”

 

Read the whole illuminating article

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland Lawmakers Want To Cripple The NSA’s Headquarters

 

 

 

” Legislators in Maryland want to turn the lights out on the NSA — literally. A bill introduced last Thursday to its House of Delegates would bar state agencies, utilities, and pretty much anything that receives state funds from providing assistance to federal agencies that collect electronic data or metadata without a specific warrant to do so. Namely, the delegates are thinking of the National Security Agency, which is headquartered just outside their state’s capital.

  The legislation is nearly identical to bills introduced elsewhere across the country, such as California, and would result in state water and electrical utilities being unable to serve the NSA — a major headache, if there ever was one. “It does pretty much say we’re going to cut off water and electricity to the NSA,” Maryland Delegate Mike Smigiel, the bill’s primary sponsor, tells The Verge. Though cutting off water and electricity would have the most immediate impact, the legislation would also stop the NSA from using state universities for research, make any evidence the NSA gathers inadmissible in state courts, and effectively fire any state employee who helps the NSA.”

 

More at the Verge

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three Arguments

 

 

” Writing for the Tenth Amendment Center, a person finds oneself spending a lot of time and pixels defending the concept of nullification.  These defenses generally take the form of answers to two questions.  Is nullification a legally valid concept?  Is nullification a good idea?  The arguments about whether or not nullification is a good idea can often be split into whether it’s a good idea from a practical sense, and whether it’s a good idea from the philosophical sense.

In this essay, I will address all of those questions.  First, using a single argument, which I believe is conclusive, I will demonstrate that nullification is, indisputably, a valid legal concept under our political system.  Having accomplished that, I will next show that under our foundational principles, nullification is a philosophical necessity.  Finally, I will advance an argument that the use of nullification will lead to an overall healthier society.

Nullification is how the states can increase anti-fragility in our political and economic systems.  Washington wants to increase its own ability to thrive from the unexpected by diminishing ours.  The states can, and should, use nullification to resist that tendency, force decentralization, and decrease our political system’s exposure to catastrophic harm.  Eventually, this country will be exposed to an existential crisis, a black swan – as Taleb terms it.   Maybe in our lifetimes, maybe in our children’s or grandchildren’s.  Exactly when it will happen, no one knows, but it will happen.  When it happens, antifragility will determine the survivors.  If we do nothing to decrease fragility in our political and economic systems, we are in grave danger.  Nullification is the most effective tool to decentralize powers which have been usurped by a recalcitrant federal government. “

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New California Law Rejects NDAA Indefinite Detention

 

 

” As reported by Nick Hankoff at the California Tenth Amendment Center today, AB351, the California Liberty Preservation Act has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown:

Assembly Bill 351, commonly called the California Liberty Preservation Act, has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown making it statewide policy to refuse compliance with federal attempts to enforce “indefinite detention” made famous by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). What began as a marginal issue with little legislative support has unified Californians of all persuasions and brought attention to the proper role the people and their states play in a constitutional republic.

AB351 now makes it state policy to reject “indefinite detention” powers from the federal government.   It reads, in part:

It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California. [emphasis added]

This language of AB351 goes far beyond what has been considered in most other states, which focus solely on indefinite detention powers under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and nothing else.  Donnelly’s legislation broadened the scope by recognizing that indefinite detention should not be complied with no matter what federal law is used to justify it.  Donnelly confirmed this broad scope, “AB351 will prevent California from implementing indefinite detention for any reason.”

This can make a HUGE dent in any federal effort to detain without due process in California.  As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). Quite simply, the federal government is going to have an extremely difficult time – at best – carrying out indefinite detention in California without the assistance of California.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Half Way There

 

Tenth Amendment Center

 

” Support for decentralizing power and rolling back overreaching federal acts continues to gain traction within the “mainstream” political establishment. Even some who generally support the DC-centric system seem to be recognizing that the federal government has completely torn itself away from the constitutional moorings meant to limit its power.

New York University Law professor Barry Friedman recently joined the Tenth Amendment Center in calling for a rollback of federal authority over both guns and weed.

Friedman’s Huffington Post article stands out in its consistent application of constitutional principle across the political aisle. The NYU professor grasps what eludes many American partisans: if the feds can control marijuana, they can control weed – and vice versa. And maybe they shouldn’t exercise quite so much control.

Friedman opens his article outlining the recent Kansas law nullifying federal gun acts, specifically provisions involving firearms manufactured and remaining within the state. He even includes the obligatory misapplication of the supremacy clause. But then, he suddenly goes all “tenther” on us.

Still, Kansas may be on to something. As the brewing collision of federal and state marijuana laws makes clear, there has to be some room for the states to have a say in what goods their citizens can possess and use. Eighteen states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and Washington and Colorado just did so even for recreational use. The problem is, what Colorado allows, federal law prohibits. Can the states opt-out from the federal laws?

But Friedman proposes a solution that illustrates the root of the problem: allowing the federal government to determine the extent of its own power.” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tenther News 05-12-13: Two More Nullification Bills Awaiting Signature

Published on May 12, 2013

” This week’s episode is made possible in part by the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. Proudly wear the Tenther label with pride and become a card-carrying member of the TAC. Get all the details at http://members.tenthamendmentcenter.com

*******

In Colorado, the State Senate last week voted to concur with the House on SB13-241, the Hemp Freedom Act. If the bill becomes law, Colorado will nullify unconstitutional federal laws and regulations which ban farmers from growing hemp. Currently, the United States is the world’s largest importer of Hemp (with China and Canada the top two exporters in the world), and the Colorado legislature wants their citizens to be allowed to participate and profit in this market.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to ban the production of this industrial plant, but has persisted in preventing its domestic production. The result? Products with hemp that are readily available at your local grocery store must be imported from another country — resulting in higher costs for you and fewer farming jobs in America.

The United States is the only developed nation that fails to cultivate industrial hemp as an economic crop, according to the Congressional Resource Service. Recent congressional research indicates that the hemp market consists of over 25,000 various products. The same research found that America imports over $400 million worth of hemp from other countries. At this time of economic difficulty, 13-241 would not only expand freedom and support the Constitution, it would also be a great jobs bill. It now goes to the Governor’s desk for a signature

Get model legislation, the Hemp Freedom Act, for introduction in your area at tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/hemp

In Missouri, the State House voted to send Governor Jay Nixon what could arguably be the strongest defense against federal gun control measures in American history. The vote was 116-38. HB436, introduced by Representative Doug Funderburk in February, was initially passed by the House in April by a vote of 115-42. The State Senate approved the bill with an amendment which did not change any of its nullification aspects. The vote there was 26-6. The bill then needed one final vote in the house which happened late last week.

The votes in both the House and Senate are by a strong veto-proof majority. Governor Jay Nixon can sign the bill into law, let it become law without signing or have his veto overridden by the legislature. In all three situations, the bill would become law by July 1st, 2013.

As law, HB436 would nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books — or planned for the future. It reads, in part: “

READ THE REST HERE:
http://news.tenthamendmentcenter.com/…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Much Control Does Supremacy Clause Give Feds? – Andrew Nappi #N3

 

Nullification: An Overview of its Many Forms

 

 

In The United States, there is NO entity vested with absolute power. The Supremacy Clause does not mean that states are bound by any law that the Congress wants to pass, as simple-minded pop-culture voices imply. It means that states are bound to the principles of The Constitution and the enumerated powers of the federal government. “

 

 

 

” In the nullification movement, there are varying degrees and methods of nullifying certain federal acts.  One who has been with the movement a while could forget and hyper focus on one, leaving someone new to the movement to think of nullification as a very narrow spectrum.

To eliminate that thinking, it is good to go back to the Tenth Amendment Center’s definition of nullification, which is: “any act, or set of actions, that results in a particular law being declared unconstitutional and rendered null, void or even just unenforceable…”

There are so many opinions on nullification, if I listed every article and opinion piece written on it in the past week, I’d probably be finished with this entry sometime around next Christmas.  This is not a bad thing.  If others are talking about it, it means the message is being heard and cannot be ignored.

This is intended to be a general review, so while there is a time for everything under the sun, there is no time to include links and sources today, just a quick refresher.  There is, however, a time when a certain forms of nullification may be more applicable than others.

 

LEGISLATIVE NULLIFICATION

The most commonly discussed type of nullification at the Tenth Amendment Center is legislative nullification.  This is when a State or local government passes a law refusing to comply with a federal action.  In the most forceful cases, this even includes arrest and jail time for federal agents attempting to enforce said federal act.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have nonbinding resolutions warning the federal government that a certain act is unconstitutional and/or unjust, much like a cease and desist letter.  While not outright nullification, these resolutions “till the soil” so to speak, setting the stage for future action.

Legislative nullification can be very useful when used at the right time, such as opposing REAL ID, but can also be abused in rare cases, such as during the period of segregation (more about combating that later).  The stronger bills, which would fall under the category of interposition, could lead to armed conflicts between state and federal officials, so courage and prudence should be carefully balanced when deciding how far a nullification bill should go.
Too little, and the legislature will either wind up having to draft a bill for stronger measures.  Too much, and conflict gets created where it needn’t be.

 

 

Other Types Of Nullification Explored In The Article Include :

 

EXECUTIVE NULLIFICATION

SHERIFF NULLIFICATION

JURY NULLIFICATION

INDIVIDUAL/GROUP NULLIFICATION

 

 

 

Read The Whole Thing . We Have Some Alternatives Besides The Sword . Familiarize Yourself With Our Legal System As We Prepare To Do Battle To Save Our Beloved Constitution .

 

 

 

A BROADER DISCUSSION

When we open our thought processes, and we allow for a broader discussion of nullification, it’s easy to see we don’t just have one hammer with which to try to fix every problem in our broken system.  We have a massive toolkit at our disposal, with a movement consisting of individuals and groups with a very general surface knowledge, specialists in specific areas, and people who have an in depth knowledge of many or all areas of nullification.

The vehicle of liberty is broken and waiting in the shop.  Let’s get everyone working on it, perhaps in different ways, but with the same goal in mind, complete and total restoration.”

 

 

For Further Enlightenment :

What is Nullification?

 

” What Is It?  State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

Says Who?  Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.

But Jefferson didn’t invent the idea. Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Patrick Henry and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.

What’s the Argument for It?  Here’s an extremely basic summary:

1) The states preceded the Union.  The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”  The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of 13 states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. “

 

 

Nullification Documentary Wins Anthem Film Festival Award At FreedomFest

 

 

Nullification: The Rightful Remedy

 

Nullification, A Constitutional History, 1776-1833

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,744 other followers