Rep. John Tanner Retiring
December 2, 2009
Well this is some good news for a lot of Tennesseans.I think he knows there’s a good chance he wouldn’t win in 2010. I’m not so sure about Roy Herron replacing him.
Rep. John Tanner Retiring: Herron Running
Longtime Congressman Not Running For Office In 2010
Tennessee U.S. Rep. John Tanner will retire next year after 11 terms in Washington.Tanner was first elected to the 8th district representing rural northwestern Tennessee in 1988 and has not faced a serious challenge since.Republicans claim Tanner’s departure is due to a potentially tough re-election race next year, as the GOP targets Democrats in rural districts.Early Wednesday morning, State Sen. Roy Herron announced he will run for Tanner’s seat.In a statement, Herron said, “Given the challenges facing this nation, this state, and this congressional district, I feel like I can help make a difference by serving in Congress.Herron told the Associated Press he was dropping out of the 2010 Tennessee governor’s race for the congressional campaign.”In the morning, instead of campaigning in 95 counties, I’ll be focused on the counties in the 8th Congressional District,” the AP reported Herron said.Herron’s own press release early Wednesday morning stated, “You deserve a much fuller explanation of my decision than I can give at this late hour. I will be back in touch with you soon to share more. For now, I respectfully ask for your consideration, your support and your prayers.”
The Push Back Begins:Health Care Freedom in Virginia
November 15, 2009
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 , the Health Care Freedom for Alaska, 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.
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.
Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment
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.
For those readers that haven’t heard how John Tanner or other representatives voted on the unconstitutional health care bill you can see all the votes here. John Tanner did the right thing and voted against the bill.
Here’s a letter from John Tanner’s office after calling him on health care. See what you think about his response. I know what I think.
Dear Mr. Davis:
Thank you for contacting our office to share your concerns with H. R. 3962, the health care reform proposal considered in the House. I have met with or heard from thousands of Tennesseans, who, like you, opposed the current legislation and others who supported it.
I continue to believe that reform of our country’s health care delivery system is needed and that all Americans should have access to affordable, quality health care. However, after careful review of the current legislation and the analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, I believe the bill will not help control the long-term costs of health care and puts in place an infrastructure that is not fiscally sustainable over time. Therefore, I was unable to support H. R. 3962.
There are many good things in this bill. We should continue our health insurance reform efforts to ensure that no one can be denied health coverage because of a pre-exiting condition and to end the insurance companies’ ability to cancel coverage when someone becomes ill. And, we simply must slow the upward curve of health care costs.
Despite my vote in opposition, H. R. 3962 passed the House by a vote of 220 to 215. The Senate is expected to consider a version of health care reform legislation in the next several weeks. Should the Senate pass its version, a House/Senate conference committee will be required to work out the differences in the two versions. Once a conference agreement has been reached, the House and Senate both will have to vote on that compromise. I plan to continue to work hard to produce a better and more cost-efficient bill that we can all support.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please continue to contact me on issues of concern to you in the future.
Sincerely,
John Tanner, M.C.
Tennessee Congressman Tanner undecided on House health care bill vote this weekend
The House will begin debate on the 2000+ page, $2.4 Trillion health care bill on Friday… and plans to vote on the bill Saturday evening. (11-07-09)
According to both the Washington D.C. and Jackson, TN offices of Congressman John Tanner, Mr. Tanner is currently “reading and reviewing the bill” and has not made a decision as to how he will vote on Saturday.(Give John Tanner a call and help him make that decision to vote against this bill or vote for it and take a chance on losing his seat in the next election.)
Rep. Tanner voted against the original bill in the Ways and Means Committee. Please call and email the Congressman and encourage him to do the same this weekend!
Congressman Tanner’s office: (202) 225-4714
You can send an email from the form at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option
Five House Republicans hope to add to Democrats’ healthcare reform bill an amendment that would automatically enroll members of Congress in the public option program.
The effort, spearheaded by Reps. John Fleming (La.), Joe Wilson (S.C.), Wally Herger (Calif.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.) and Steve Scalise (La.), would bar lawmakers from participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which they currently use for health insurance. Instead, members would have to rely on the Health Insurance Exchange and the public option plan House Democrats are proposing in their latest healthcare reform effort.
“If Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] and her Democratic counterparts truly believe that their government insurance option is the best way forward for healthcare in the United States, then they should be fully supportive of amending the bill to ensure that every single member of Congress, both in the House and Senate, is enrolled in it,” explained Rep. Gingrey, who is leading the new campaign.
Tennessee launches boycott of ‘unconstitutional’ federal laws
October 22, 2009
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.
Phil Bredesen:New ObamaCare version claims not to increase federal deficit, but it explodes state budget deficits
October 10, 2009
This time I can say……good for Tn Gov. Phil Bredesen.
New ObamaCare version claims not to increase federal deficit, but it explodes state budget deficits
Democrats are cheering a Congressional Budget Office decision to “score” the Senate Finance Committee’s version of ObamaCare as not increasing the federal budget deficit. But it pays for some of ObamaCare’s massive cost by expanding state Medicaid programs, shifting billions in costs to the states. That will radically increase state budget deficits. Moreover, this version of ObamaCare, while cheaper than the four other versions, still relies on mythical cost savings and massive cuts to Medicare that are likely to be canceled after ObamaCare is enacted, to avoid enraging seniors and doctors. Rather than keeping costs down, ObamaCare outsources them to state governments and people with insurance.
This version of ObamaCare “proposes to spend more than $800 billion in the midst of an explosion of federal spending and debt to create a new entitlement program, the cost of which CBO says will grow at more than 8 percent a year (faster than health care costs grow now), and to raise taxes by almost $200 billion in the midst of a recession. It then proposes to make up the difference by massive cuts in Medicare which, as CBO notes, are unlikely to actually materialize.”
The Congressional Budget Office “scored” the bill as not increasing the deficit, but in doing so, it admitted that the bill does not even exist except as a concept, and that its details have yet to be fleshed out. Senate leaders intend to have the Finance Committee vote on the bill before its text is even available, and to have the Senate vote on the bill with virtually no advance notice, after major changes are made to the broad outline of the bill approved by the Committee (to add a potentially-costly “public option”).
ObamaCare would pay to cover some currently uninsured people by expanding state Medicaid programs. Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen (D) is criticizing Obama’s health-care plan as “the mother of all unfunded mandates,” saying it will force states to spend so much that they will have to either massively raise taxes, or run large budget deficits that violate state constitutions.
Some people who currently have employer-provided insurance or individual insurance policies will lose that insurance under ObamaCare. In states that adopted major provisions of ObamaCare, the number of privately-insured people fell, as the cost of their insurance skyrocketed. “The Congressional Budget Office analyzed” ObamaCare “and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.” Some of these people will wind up on Medicaid, which ObamaCare will expand to cover some people who are not poor enough to be covered now.
While the CBO has scored this version of ObamaCare as not increasing the federal budget deficit (unlike the 4 other versions of ObamaCare pending in Congress, which the CBO admits would explode the deficit), some of Obama’s own advisers are more skeptical. Earlier, adviser Martin Feldstein said that Obama’s health-care plan would explode the federal budget deficit and lead to “crippling deficits,” as well as “higher taxes, debt payments, and interest rates” that would cut America’s standard of living. Feldstein also noted that Obama’s health-care plan would harm people with insurance, and predicted that it would lead to massive tax increases. Other analysts have predicted that it will drive up medical costs and inflation.
Obama is relying on $2 trillion in imaginary savings to pay for his health care plan. He is also relying on tax increases, which breaks Obama’s campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.
Fact-checkers say Obama is lying about health-care. CNN Money says ObamaCare would take away 5 freedoms.
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
BATFE Declare Tennessee Gun Law Invalid
July 19, 2009
BATFE has no authority to interpret the constitutional legality of a state law, but they think they do I guess. I hope Tennessee challenges this…they should.
The states should have never let the federal government get away with using the commerce clause to regulate the 2nd amendment in the 1930s during the progressive movement.
BATFE Declare Tennessee Gun Law Invalid
It is yet another example of the federal government running roughshod over the states.
Last month, the state of Tennessee’s General Assembly passed House Bill 1796, the “Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act,” which states that any firearms or ammunition manufactured within the state and legally owned and kept within the state by citizens are “not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration” due to provisions in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
But according to Assistant Director Carson W. Carroll of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the U.S. Constitution is little more than a g.d. piece of paper, as George W. Bush so infamously deemed it during his reign as the decider-in-chief.
 |
|
| Click here to see an enlargement of the letter |
On July 16, Carroll dispatched his agency’s official response to the law passed in Tennessee — the BATFE asserts that “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.”
It will be interesting to see how Tennessee reacts to this official proclamation.
State of Tennessee Outsourcing Call Center Jobs to India
It isn’t unheard of for industries to outsource jobs and send them overseas. But if the state recently put unemployed Tennesseans to work for Tennessee in a state-run call center in Perry County, why is the state still outsourcing a huge amount of call center work overseas?
Perry County struggles to be a portrait of the American dream. Patriotism waves strong even as prosperity fades and factories close. The county’s unemployment rate is the highest in the state and one of the highest in the nation.”We need the jobs here in the country, not out of the country,” said restaurant owner Betty Bell.
| // |
Her restaurant is one of the few places that’s surviving in a county where fewer people are finding work.”It’s noticeable from the kids at school to the grocery store to everywhere in town,” said Bell.In an effort to help jump-start the county’s economy, the state opened the call center using stimulus money.The 14 part-time operators will help Tennesseans with unemployment claims, but the state needs operators for other spots, too — spots that aren’t being filed with Tennesseans. These jobs are being filled by people who live outside of the United States.The state has a lot of call centers, but at least one is on the other side of world in India. And that’s where the additional jobs are going.
The state has a lot of call centers, but at least one is on the other side of world in India. And that’s where the additional jobs are going.The state is looking at extending a contract to keep the call center and the jobs that go with it in India.
Read entire article @ WSMV.com
Letter to the Govenor of Tennessee: Firearms Act
June 15, 2009
I got this letter from my friend Ron in Nashville that he sent to Governor Bredesen concerning the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act just recently passed by both houses. Remember as Ron said, the states created the Federal government, not vice versa. The 2nd amendment is directed at the Federal government and restricts them, not the citizens. I thought the letter was very good and so did Steve. Ron said we could post it, so here it is. Thanks Ron.
Letter to the Govenor Bredesen of Tennessee Re: Firearms Act
Dear Govenor Bredesen,
Thank you for signing most of the bills to support and expand the right of the people for armed self-defense passed in this legislative session. All of them were in accordance with our rights enumerated in Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution’s Declaration of Rights. According to the 9th Amendment, “the people” by their governments in the States, can expand upon and enumerate more rights than in the U.S. Bill of Rights; rights which are outside the “delegated powers” of the United States:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. –9th Amendment
I noticed that you allowed the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act to pass into law without your signature. I thank you for not vetoing it. Some of your reported statements regarding this bill are as follows:
“This bill is not about firearms. It is about a fringe constitutional theory that I believe will be quickly dispensed with by the federal courts.”
“The Tennessee General Assembly lacks the Constitutional authority to limit the power and authority of federal government in this way…”
“…While I share the General Assembly’s commitment to federalism, this legislation contravenes our Constitution. I am allowing it to become law so that it can quickly be dealt with by the federal courts.”
If you rehearse civics history, the United States Government is a creation of the States. The U.S. Constitution is a legal document which grants “delegated powers” to the Federal Government and also added, in the words of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, ”further restrictive and declarative clauses” in the first ten amendments. That is, “restrictive” of the Federal Government and “declarative” of the rights of the people.
First we have the “delegated powers” regarding the militia:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,AND FOR GOVERNING SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; -–Article I, Section 8.15-16, U.S. Constitution (EMPHASIS MINE)
Then the 10th Amendment makes it clear that the Federal Government cannot operate beyond the specifically ”delegated powers”. In the case of firearms, the Federal Government only has delegated power to govern the part of the militia that it calls into its service and employs for the reasons specified in Clause 15 of Article I, Section 8.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. –10th Amendment.
Finally the 2nd Amendment is “declarative” of the right of the people and totally restricts any Federal intervention regarding an armed citizenry by saying “shall not be infringed”. The explanatory sub-ordinate clause opening the sentence makes it clear, along with the 10th Amendment, that any other powers regarding the organized militia is retained by ” a free State”.
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infirnged. –2nd Amendment
According to an objective reading of the legal contract by which the States established the Federal Government with “delegated powers”, the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act is completely in accordance. Once again, thank you for allowing this important piece of legislation to pass into law which will hopefully provide an impetus, along with similar bills in other States, to return the U.S. government to its Constitutional constraints.
Sincerely, Ron
Nashville, Tn..
“It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights… Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power… Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson
Steve Hilton
babybttrfly
Mike
