The Push Back Begins:Health Care Freedom in Virginia

Well here’s another example of the 10th amendment in action as the founding fathers intended and federal nullification because of another  overbearing unconstitutional  bill possibly coming from Congress/Senate. Arizona has also done the same thing with their Arizona Health Care Freedom Act , as well as Kansas with their Kansas Health Care Freedom Amendment. The health care vote yesterday is far from the end of things – and  even when it passes the Senate (which I assume some version will), it’s still not the end of the road for freedom.

The real way to resist DC is not by begging politicians and judges in Washington to allow us to exercise our rights…it’s to exercise our rights whether they want to give us “permission” to or not.

Nullification – state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws – is the way forward.  It’s peaceful, effective, and has a long history in the American tradition.

Better yet, we expect to see 20-25 states considering legislation to effectively ban national health care in their state in the 2010 legislative session. That same number of states has been able to effectively prevent the Real ID Act of 2005 from being implemented without ever being repealed or challenged in court.

The bottom line?  If you want to make real change; if you want to really do something for liberty and for the Constitution…focus on local activism and your state governments.

No more marches on Washington – they don’t work.

And on the 2nd amendment we have Tennessee,Montana and now Kentucky passing their Firearms Freedom Acts. These things happening is making me believe what the Russian man said several months ago now I am starting to believe may com true. “Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S by Civil War breaking it up into six pieces”.

Health Care Freedom in Virgina

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. (No they don’t!) 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.

TenthAmendmentCenter.com

Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment

Well here we go with another state attempting to break away from the an overbearing and the unconstitutional actions of our federal government.

Jefferson once wrote, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” To resist this centralizing trend, Jefferson was convinced, the states needed some kind of corporate defense mechanism, nullification.

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

(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 that state is concerned.)

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? (I think it’s a conflict of interest to take it to a federal court, just pass a state law nullifying the federal authority in your state.  Actually IMO the states don’t need justification from federal courts, the states just need to tell the federal government they don’t recognize or authorize their authority to regulate gun control in their state based on nullification of that federal law in their state. The state legislature can pass such a law and nullify the federal authority from what I”ve read and heard. Check out additional info here.)

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.

TenthAmendmentCenter.com

Obamacare Declared DOA in Senate

Well let’s hope this article is true, because regardless of what a lot of people think we don’t need a government run healthcare system in the US.

ObamaCare legislation in trouble

Not so fast.

President Obama’s victory dance yesterday for the House-passed health-care bill came as Senate foes — mainly Republicans with one key Democrat moderate — pronounced the measure mortally wounded, if not outright DOA.

Speaking from the Rose Garden after the squeaker 220-215 Saturday-night vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on a relay team and “take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people.”

Instead, he met with immediate resistance.

If a government plan is part of the deal, “as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote,” Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome a GOP filibusters, told “Fox News Sunday.”

Lieberman said he was concerned about new government spending the health-care legislation would entail, saying deficits have gotten gargantuan.

“I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren,” he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” declared, “The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate.” ( Graham went on to say….“The public option will destroy private health care. Nobody in this country in the Insurance business can compete with the government sponsored plan where the government writes the benefits and the politicians never raise the premiums. It  will be a death blow to private choice and all of these bills depend on reducing Medicare by $500 billion over the next 10 years.  Seniors are not going to like that, it’s unnecessary.  I just feel like the construct coming out of the House and what exists in the Senate is not going to pass and I hope and pray it doesn’t because it would be a disaster for the economy and health care.”)

“It was bill written by liberals for liberals, and people like Joe Lieberman are not going to get anywhere near the House bill . . . It is a nonstarter in the Senate.”

He said he firmly believes “the public option will destroy private health care.”

The House-backed bill would expand coverage to nearly all Americans and bar insurance practices such as refusing to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.

But in the Senate, moderate Dems have balked at Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan for a public option, an insurance plan run by the government rather than private companies.

Reid (D-Nev.) has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.

Democrats have no margin for error: They control exactly 60 seats in the 100-member Senate.

The overhaul would lead to the biggest changes in the $2.5 trillion health-care system — which accounts for one-sixth of the US economy — since the 1965 creation of the Medicare government health-insurance program for the elderly.

The House vote was a vital victory for Obama, who staked much of his political capital on the health-care battle.

A loss in the House could have ended the fight, impaired the rest of his legislative agenda and left Democrats vulnerable to big losses in next year’s congressional elections.

NYPost.com

Is National Health Care Constitutional

I’m glad to see this question being asked by a prominent person like Orin Hatch and I think the honest answer to this is NO forced national health care is not Constitutional. But whether a court will have the political guts to rule as such is a different matter.

Sen. Hatch Questions Constitutionality of Obamacare:

If Feds Can Force Us to Buy Health Insurance ‘Then There’s Literally Nothing the Federal Government Can’t Force Us to Do’ ( Maybe Congress should pass a law that everyone has to buy at least $10,000 worth of life insurance or buy a new car this year or buy a new HD television or a computer –where does this stuff stop? I think it stops at the question, Is this Constitutional? In this case I don’t think it is.)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) (Congressional photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has served in the Senate for 33 years and is a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not believe the Democrats’ health-care reform plan is constitutionally justifiable, noting that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance “then there is literally nothing the federal government can’t force us to do.”

Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care reform plan would force all individuals who are citizens or legal residents of the United States to buy health insurance. President Obama has endorsed this provision.

Hatch said if the federal government starts ordering Americans to purchase specific products without being able to plausibly justify that mandate through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, it will mean “we’ve lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us.”

The Commerce Clause, found in Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution, says: “The Congress shall have power to … regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Hatch said this constitutional language authorizes Congress to regulate some types of commercial “activity,” which is different from authorizing Congress to force an individual American to engage in a commercial activity he or she is not presently engaged in and–as a free person–does not want to engage in. He said that “not one” of his Democratic colleagues has given a coherent constitutional argument to explain where Congress would derive the authority to do the latter.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service.

In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the Congressional Budget Office studied that plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO concluded.  “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

“I think there’s a real constitutional issue there,” Hatch said on the CNSNews.com program “Online with Terry Jeffrey.”

“Well, keep in mind the General Welfare Clause hasn’t been used for years, except through the Commerce Clause–Article I, Section 8,” said Hatch. “And frankly the Commerce Clause affects, quote, ‘activities,’ unquote. And, you know, the government telling you you have to buy health insurance–mandating that you have to buy health insurance–is not an activity. That’s telling you you got to do something you don’t want to do.

“Well, let’s put it this way,” said Hatch. “If that is held constitutional–for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance–then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing.”

When CNSNews.com asked Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) where the Constitution authorizes Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance, Leahy would not directly answer the question, claiming that “nobody” questioned Congress’s authority to do this.

“We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?” Leahy told CNSNews.com reporter Matt Cover. ”Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was equally dismissive of the question of where the Constitution authorized Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. When reporter Matt Cover asked her the question, she said: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs similarly dismissed the issue without directly saying where the Constitution authorized the federal government to force people to buy health insurance. When CNSNews.com White House Correspondent Fred Lucas asked Gibbs to comment on the fact that some Republicans were questioning the constitutionality of forcing Americans to buy health insurance, Gibbs said: “I won’t be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don’t believe there’s a lot of–I don’t believe there’s a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of what they’re commentating on.”

Hatch said that if Congress claimed the power to tell Americans what things they must buy there would be “no limit” to the power of the federal government over the lives of Americans.

CNS News.com

Tennessee launches boycott of ‘unconstitutional’ federal laws

Good for our Tennessee legislators and Governor for being a state that is standing up for states rights and sovereignty. Then Urges 49 others to join in combating government’s ‘abuse of authority’.

From Rep. Susan Lynn blogspot.com , here is her first draft sent to the other states:

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.

On July 4, 1776 our founding fathers declared their independence from the government of Great Britain; thus the united colonies became free and independent states.

The Declaration of Independence established the American view of the rights of man and the duties of government. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” They concluded by stating that our “separate but equal station” with Britain and other governments of the world would give us “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.”

In 1787, using the model of the Declaration of Independence as a guide to governance, and following the short lived Articles of Confederation; a Constitution was written which provides seventeen specific powers of the federal government (Article 1, Section 8).

In 1789, a Bill of Rights was crafted because “the Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”; thus “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.”

The Bill of Rights consists of natural rights and rights that serve to secure our natural rights. They make clear that all natural rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights are protected, and clarify that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states and the people. The ensuing amendments either do likewise or establish additional powers and terms for our government.

Therefore, we are a collection of free and independent states; the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights; and our national government is authorized to carry out the seventeen enumerated powers and powers 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.

So there are clear limits to the power of the federal government. However, today the simple and clear expression of purpose has turned 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.

The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. Adherence to the specific powers and the fundamental American ideal that our government is based on the theory of natural rights expressed ever so simply as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that no government can deny these rights; 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.

---

State launches boycott of ‘unconstitutional’ federal laws

Tennessee is urging 49 other states to come together and create a “joint working group between the states” to combat unconstitutional federal legislation and assert state rights.

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen signed HJR 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution on June 23. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the resolution created a committee to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and seek repeal of imposed mandates.

State Rep. Susan Lynn recently wrote a letter to the other 49 state legislatures, inviting them to join the group and warning that the role of the federal government has been “blurred, bent and breached.”

“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,” Lynn wrote. “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.”

She continued, “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.”

Lynn said that the people created the federal government to be their agent only for certain enumerated purposes.(She is exactly correct on that one.)

“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,” she wrote. “The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.”

She noted that the Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws, nor does it give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. Attempts to include such provisions in the Constitution were rejected by the Founding Fathers.(Exactly correct again!)

“With this in mind,” she wrote, “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.”

In one example of Tennessee’s battle against federal government policies, federal gun regulators wrote to gun dealers around Tennessee in July, dropping the hammer on a state law that exempts weapons made, sold and used inside the state from interstate regulations.

The idea is spreading quickly. Similar plans have been introduced in many other states.

WorldNetDaily.com

Urges 49 others to join in combating government’s ‘abuse of authority’

---

U.S. Congressman Brian Baird Gets Lectured at Town Hall Meeting

You would think at some point Obama and our representatives would finally get it that the majority of Americans don’t want a government takeover of health care, period. Even if you can go it alone…….WE DON’T WANT IT!! THANKS, BUT NO THANKS !!

I, David William Hedrick, a member of the silent majority, decided that I was not going to be silent anymore. So, I let U.S. Congressman Brian Baird have it. I was one questioner out of 38, that was called at random from an audience that started at 3,000 earlier in the evening. Not expecting to be called on, I quickly scratched what I wanted to say on a borrowed piece of paper and with a pen that I borrowed from someone else in the audience minutes before I spoke. So much for the planned talking points of the right wing conspiracy.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION REVISITED vs Tn. Firearms Freedom Act

Here’s a good article by Chuck Baldwin, that refers to the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act and why the ATF is in the wrong for declaring our state law invalid. He also explains some history that has been forgotten. I’m going to start the article mostly where it begins talking about Tennessee.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION REVISITED

Let’s be honest, America is facing the same legal, moral and ethical questions that our Founding generation did, especially regarding the issue of “Who Is Sovereign in the United States.” For our Founders, they fought, bled and died on the principles that no man or government has the right to rule over others contrary to their agreement (i.e. compact, constitution) and contrary to the principles of natural law as revealed in the Creation of God; that all men are born in nature with the power to govern themselves; and that no Sovereign government, established lawfully by the consent of we the people, can be usurped and controlled by any other entity. Thus, today in America, the question once again comes down to “Who is Sovereign in the United States?”

Today, there are 3 basic options for “Who is Sovereign in the United States”: (1) the Federal government, (2) the State governments or (3) We the People. I feel confident in stating that most contemporary Americans believe that the answer to this critical question is the Federal government–especially as it concerns any practical effect on the power of and over government. For years, Americans have been brainwashed though public education, major media networks and politicians that ALL federal laws are the “supreme law of the land” and that no state law or action to the contrary is valid, citing Article 6, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution as their “irrefutable” proof. Of course they are completely wrong: American ideology and legal fact states that sovereignty rests with “we the people.” However, the question must be more narrowly defined.

As some of you may know, several states have and are passing legislation regarding the independence and sovereignty of the people of their respective states. More specifically, the states of Tennessee and Montana have passed “Firearms Freedom Acts,” which have become law and which reaffirm their Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. This law states that any firearms that are made, sold and bought in that state are NOT subject to the Federal regulations of firearms, because they are inherently internal affairs, which exempt them from the commerce clause of the US Constitution.

As you would imagine, the Federal government, through its agency, the Department of Justice, did not take too kindly to Tennessee’s assertion of jurisdiction over this matter and position that the federal laws did not apply to the subject matter at hand. This federal opposition has become known through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), whereby they informed the firearms licensees in an “open letter” in Tennessee that the recently enacted law (Firearms Freedom Act) does not apply and is void and that they (the firearms licensees) must still obey and submit to the federal laws, regardless of the State’s statute. (See here)

This ATF response tells us the following about the federal government’s ideology of Sovereignty: (1) the federal government does not recognize the lawful and independent jurisdiction of the Sovereigns of Tennessee to operate their internal affairs as they deem proper and fitting; (2) the Sovereigns of Tennessee do not possess lawful jurisdiction to govern themselves through constitutional means; (3) the federal government has the power and authority to control the internal affairs of all States, as they deem fit. Bottom line, the Federal government is Sovereign. With their theory in mind, however, what commodity, what relationship, what contract, what service, or what molecule in this entire country would not be subject to their control and power?

(Here the article goes on to describe the situation between the British and the colonies,it’s good, but I’m skipping here because of the length.)

This concept of “supreme law of the land” was expressed by a founding father, whom many would consider to be a “centralist” in belief, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper #27:

“[T]hat the laws of the Confederacy [meaning, the United States of America--yes, even Hamilton, along with many other founders, such as George Washington, called the US Constitution a Confederacy, because they knew that the nature and character of the compact of the US Constitution did not change from the Articles of Confederation] as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land, to the observance . . . in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operation of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS.”

Hamilton’s legal position concerning the limited power of the federal government and the “supreme law of the land” was the consensus of the founders, the States and we the people. Nowhere in America’s founding was there the notion that the supreme laws of the land were anything contrary to the compact FOR the States. The supreme laws of the land are simply those “fundamental laws” that we the people have created and imposed upon the government to follow and uphold.

Of course, the question has been raised over the past 150 years of “who has the power to determine whether or not the Federal government has usurped their constitutional authority?” The popular answer is (wrongfully), the US Supreme Court. God forbid that the Sovereigns of each State must wait and rely on 9 federal judges to make rulings of this nature before a State would have any legal rights or justification to act in accordance with the will of their Sovereigns. Indeed, the ATF interpreted the Constitution unilaterally without the opinion of the US Supreme Court and without opinion or order denied the constitutionality of Tennessee’s Firearms Freedom Act. The Sovereigns in each state have the same power, and the historical and legal evidence is plentiful. Consider Thomas Jefferson’s position:

“[T]he States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation.” (Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, [New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900], 133)

I will not attempt to persuade the reader at this point on the fallacious position that only the US Supreme Court can make a determination of constitutional actions. However, for those who would argue that the US Supreme Court is in fact the only legal means by which a State can say “no” to the federal government, then I believe that such a person has reached the point of voluntary slavery, and such a person is dangerous to the concepts of federalism.

What we are seeing today, and have seen for over 100 years in America, is the usurpation of the federal government over Sovereignty–we the people–and over Jurisdiction–the States. While this article cannot begin to expound in depth the true character and nature of the US Constitution, a study of history reveals that the US Constitution was an agreement between the Sovereigns of each State whereby they acceded to give up only certain parts of their sovereignty for the “more perfect union” of the people within those States. As with any sovereign people or government, accession may be limited to whatever means and ways necessary to protect the freedom of that society. This is in fact what the Colonists did in 1776 when declaring independence from Great Britain, what the States did in 1781 when ratifying the Articles of Confederation, and what the States did in 1787 when ratifying the US Constitution. It was the Sovereigns, through their respective States, who declared their natural rights under God, who secured their natural rights through independence from governments and who expressed that any act outside of their consent is tyranny.

When this recognition resounds in the hearts and minds of the people, as our Declaration of Independence states, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Do you really think after only 11 years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence that those same people who risked everything for independence from those “living-constitutionalists” in Great Britain and who believed in the principles seen in the Articles of Confederation would have completely renounced their understanding of a Confederacy and Federalism and would have resigned the same and delegated all of their powers that they fought and died to secure for each State and for their citizens? If you think so silly a notion, you severely impose injustice upon the intelligence and intentions of our founders.

However, the record is clear that the Sovereigns of each State never ceded to the federal government powers not expressly vested to it and never waived the ability to reclaim that power through their proper channels–the States–the same channels by which the US Constitution was ratified. Consider the Sovereigns’ voice in the State of Virginia in 1787:

However, the Federal government today does not recognize the Sovereignty in the people of the respective states; it does not recognize the respective States’ jurisdiction over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government; and it does not seem to acknowledge State Sovereignty under the 10th amendment of the US Constitution. Given their evident intent and purposes to continually grow in power and to continually oppress and suppress the sovereignty of we the people, against our respective states, the question becomes, how will they be made to understand this? It is of course up to the Sovereigns in each state to answer this question. And we see the answers arriving through State laws such as the Firearms Freedom Act.

The time has come in America where to be free necessarily means to resist status quo and federal usurpation and to actively change the course and philosophy being shoved down our throats. There really is no middle ground any more. This is not a matter of politics anymore. This is not a matter of Republican and Democrat. This is a matter of FREEDOM, as much so as were the matters of 1775 and 1776. It is staring you in the face, daring you to make a move. May we never be guilty of causing, whether by our apathy, indifference, laziness or comfort, this nation to lose the freedoms that our founders attempted to secure with infinite pains and labors. We the people must once again reassert our Sovereignty in this country and the States must recognize and act upon their God-ordained role as Freedom protectors and tyranny resisters.

Read the entire article at NewsWithViews.com

The Battle Begins: ATF vs Tennesse & the Constitution

Federal law does not trump State law. Here we go I hope Tennessee and other states stand up on their 10th amendment rights……strongly.

by Bryce Shonka

A line was drawn in the sand last week – a response by the Federal Government to the State of Tennessee and their assertion of sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

(Editor’s note: A similar response was sent to Montana Firearms licenses on 07-16-09 as well)

Part of a series of moves by states seeking to utilize the Tenth Amendment as a limit on Federal Power,  the Tennessee State Senate approved Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7.  The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1.

Governor Breseden allowed the bill to become law without signing.

The law states that “federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. 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.”

At the time of passage through the TN House and Senate, Judiciary Chairman Mae Beavers had this to say-

“Be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to regulate commerce contained completely within this state – enough is enough.  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.”

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:

“The letter says, in part, ‘because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.’ That is precisely what I predicted the Federal Government’s response to the Tennessee act would be.  As I told Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News’s Glenn Beck Program on June 5, 2009, federal officials don’t care about a good historical argument concerning the meaning of the Constitution.”

“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.”

The Federal Government has regularly claimed that the commerce clause of the constitution, which gives DC authority to regulate commerce between the states, gives them authority to regulate or add prohibitions on items that never cross state lines.

One notable use of the commerce clause in this manner can be found in the 2005 decision by the Supreme Court in ‘Gonzales vs. Raich’, where  the court contended that consuming one’s locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption.  They used this claim, even though at the same time they made it clear that no legal market for marijuana exists.

One key aspect of the ATF’s letter is that it was only sent out to existing Federal Firearms Licensees, those generally already in compliance with federal regulations – and who likely would not have participated in the TN Firearms Freedom act anyway, according to sources close to Tenth Amendment Center.

Ultimately what the letter represents is another move in the chess match being played out between the states and the Federal Government, the resolution of which may not be seen for quite some time.

Talk Show Hosts May Be Accomplices Under Hate Bill

Just like Steve has always said…………here it comes……HATE SPEECH……the states should stand on the 10th amendment on this one as well. It appears this article is combining two bills together, one the Hate Crimes Protection Bill and the other the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (HR 1966).

he Hate Crimes Prevention Act which has passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin is now facing hearings in the Senate. There are already similar hate crime laws in place, however, this bill imposes much stronger federal enforcement, which is a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment. It grants greater power to federal prosecutors to prosecute hate crime laws by prosecuting those who have been found innocent by local or state courts. The current bill will extend special privileges to gays and transgender individuals that are currently only granted to ethnic and religious minorities. The most dangerous part of the Bill which is a direct assault against the First Amendment is that it allows for the prosecution as accomplices in a hate crime for talk show pundits that the person who commits the alleged crime claims to influence their actions.

Here is the essential text:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)

Reverend Ted Pike of the National Prayer Network says that “this means that if any pastor, talk show host or guest, or anyone communicating on radio or the internet is repeatedly “hostile” to the practice of homosexuality and “intends” to cause “substantial emotional distress” in homosexuals, leading to repentance, he is guilty. The speaker doesn’t even have to succeed in causing such conviction for sin, even though he will be especially guilty if he does. In either case, the federal government is empowered under this bill to invade any state to prosecute the “bully” of the airwaves.”

This Bill is the first major step to stripping away our rights to freedom of speech in the 1st amendment. Recently the Plains State ADL Director denounced the 1st Amendment by saying that “freedom of speech does not extend to racist groups, nor give their supporters the right to threaten and intimidate others or commit acts of violence.“In many western nations, an individual can be prosecuted by the government for certain speech.

Though we still have the First Amendment we are headed in that direction of Europe and Canada where people can be prosecuted for thought crimes. Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League have aggressively promoted hate crime legislation. These organizations have endorsed Europe and Canada’s policies on prosecuting what they deem as hate speech. The ADL openly advocates for their model anti-hate law.  In 1988 the ADL gave out an award to law student Joseph Ribikoff for writing a proposed hate crime bill that would criminalize hate speech against gays and minorities.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, ADL Washington counsel Michael Lieberman spoke in support of the Hate Crimes Bill. “We have no illusions about this legislation,” Lieberman testified. “We know that bigotry, racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism cannot be legislated out of existence. A new federal law that finally addresses all victims of hate crimes will not eliminate them.”

Examiner.com

Arizona Looks to Outlaw Global Warming Legislation

Maybe more states will start doing this to put brakes on our out of control federal government. Another states rights and sovereignty issue under the 9th and 10th amendment. Sounds like a good idea.

Arizona may become the first state to ban costly legislation based on climate change theory.

One state looks to ensure its citizens do not have to pay for climate change efforts

Climate change is a controversial topic.  Some believe man is causing the world to warm.  Others point out that the Earth has undergone solar warming and cooling for millions of years and that current temperatures are well within historic levels.  A recent report challenging AGW theory showed significant support with 31,478 U.S. researchers and scientists, many of whom hold Ph.D’s, signing a statement that they believe that man has not played a part in the current warming trend.

Arizona is now close to becoming the first state to outlaw climate change legislation.  The state Senate voted Monday, 19-10 to approve a bill banning the Department of Environmental Quality from enacting or enforcing measures with language pertaining to climate change.  The bill is now awaiting House approval.

The bill will likely pass and be signed into law thanks to a switch in power.  Formerly, Janet Napolitano (D) was governor of the state, but she left to join Barack Obama’s Cabinet.  Napolitano was replaced by Jan Brewer (R), who has not indicated a strong desire to support AGW theorists.

If Senate Bill 1147 passes it will block rules passed by the DEQ that set harsher emission standards.  The proposed increases were hastily pushed through by the former governor, despite complaints from industry leaders.  It would also end work on “cap and trade” carbon legislation, which has been opposed by the utility industry.  Such a scheme could help to raise power prices for the state’s citizens significantly.

A passage could also give the state means to challenge the federal government in court over the proposed Waxman-Markey bill, which would put over $1,600 in yearly costs on American citizens to cut carbon emissions.  The legislation, which has also received criticism for potentially hurting farmers, is currently making its way through a Democrat controlled House and Senate, awaiting Barack Obama’s approval.

DailyTech.com