Home

No Longer Will We Stand Idly By

Leave a comment

Bookmark and Share  

by Andrew Nappi, Florida Tenth Amendment Center 

The following is based off a speech given at Nullify Now! Orlando on 10-10-10

Isn’t it incredible that, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, that anyone can still believe that the founders would’ve fought a long, cruel, bloody war just to exchange one central, overpowering government for another? And yet, these guys sitting on the courts want to define the limits of our freedom for the extension of greater government control. That is not the founders’ legacy. That’s not why we’re here today.

For these out of touch elitists, the Bill of Rights is just a historical curiosity – it’s quaint and doesn’t mean anything. But we know that the Bill of Rights is the very essence of state sovereignty. That’s why it was created, and that wasn’t lost on the founders.

In fact, at the North Carolina ratifying convention Samuel Spencer said, “It appears to me that the state governments are not sufficiently secured and that they may be swallowed up by the great mass of powers given to congress.” Was that prophetic? Just look what we have today… More

when the federal government “assumes undelegated powers…” nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.

1 Comment

For more than a century, We the People have been marching on D.C. in the hopes that federal politicians would see the light and limit federal power. We have been suing in federal courts in the hopes that federal judges would limit federal power. We keep “voting the bums out.” But every federal election cycle we end up with new bums that expand federal power! 

Asking, demanding, hoping – that the federal government will limit its own power – just doesn’t work. So why not try something new? Nullify Now!

Thomas Jefferson wrote that when the federal government “assumes undelegated powers…” a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.

NULLIFICATION – has a long history in the American tradition. It is happening across the country RIGHT NOW. And YOU can help this growing movement go mainstream. More

Has anyone ever refused to answer a question from a federal inquisitor on Tenth Amendment grounds

Leave a comment

www.DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “All substances are poisons: there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy.” — Paracelsus (1493-1541)

The baseball pitcher, Roger Clemens, is in the news. He has been charged with the supposed crime of lying to the politicians in Congress about his use of steroids.

* How should we think about this?
* What are the Constitutional issues involved?

To answer these questions we offer you some imaginary testimony — things Roger Clemens could have said to Congress, instead of what he did say.

* You’ve heard of people “pleading the 5th” — invoking the 5th Amendment’s protection against self incrimination, but . . .
* James Wilson argues that Clemens should have “plead the 10th” — invoking the 10th Amendment’s limitation of federal power.
* You’ll see why when you read the imaginary testimony below.

An earlier version of this was published on Thursday, January 10, 2008, when Clemens was first called to testify before Congress. This slightly edited version makes points that are just as relevant now.

—–

Has anyone ever refused to answer a question from a federal inquisitor on Tenth Amendment grounds? I don’t know, but I’d love to hear it from Roger Clemens when he testifies at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee next month:

“Mr. Chairman, I have read the Constitution and it does not grant you authority to hold a hearing on steroid use. Therefore, I will exercise my rights as an American citizen under the Tenth Amendment, and my natural rights as a human being, by refusing to answer your questions.

“But let me clarify one thing: I do see under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations. It’s possible that this includes anything that relates to the selling of goods across state lines. I will therefore affirm that . . . More

REPORT ON THE 10TH AMENDMENT RALLY IN ALBANY NY

1 Comment

John Wallace
Liberty News Online
American Politics/blogtalk radio
______________________________________________________________
It was a beautiful, rain free day on August 7th at the Capitol Steps in Albany where freedom loving New Yorkers gathered in support of the United States Constitution, focusing on the Amendment. The rally began as patriotic music, including songs by local bands the Ameros and American Spirit Unbroken, played while tables were set up by the speakers and candidates. Organizers, driven by the desire to spread the message of the importance of State’s Rights in restoring our Republic and individual liberty, coordinated this event in six weeks with minimal experience and funding.
 
John Wallace Comments at the Rally (Video):
Part I (4 minutes)
Part II (7 minutes)
 
 
The rally was mainly promoted via internet and some radio announcements from Hudson, NY where many of the organizers originate. Traditionally, New York is a left-wing state, but this is a spark that will set afire many more people in the state toward stopping the Federal Government’s intrusion on our liberties. More

REPEALING OBAMACARE: HR 4972 and HR 5444

1 Comment

08-18-2010 7:38 pm – William F. Jasper
Liberty News:Repealing ObamaCare is not an option — it is absolutely essential. It is absolutely essential, that is, if the United States of America is to survive as a constitutional republic with a federal government of limited powers. Repealing ObamaCare is also absolutely necessary if we hope to avoid national economic collapse.

To those who may think such statements are overblown, we strongly advise that they read, in particular, Thomas R. Eddlem’s “Outcome of ObamaCare” as well as Michael Tennant’s “The New World of ObamaCare.” As these articles amply demonstrate, the mammoth “health care reform” bill that was rammed through Congress last March and signed by President Obama is jam-packed with dangerous language that will provide federal bureaucrats with vast new powers that are compatible with totalitarian systems of government, but not with the American tradition of liberty. More

MILITARY GOVERNMENT

Leave a comment

Todays article was received from Rebekah Sutherland

Distinction between enemies who are subjects of a foreign government, and are therefore called” alien enemies,” and those who are denizens and subjects of the United States, and being engaged in civil war, are called” public enemies. ”

An alien owes no allegiance or obedience to our government, or to our constitution, laws, or proclamations. . A citizen subject is bound to obey them all. In refusing such obedience, he is guilty of crime against his country, and finds in the law of nations no justification for disobedience. An alien, being under no such obligation, is justified in refusing such obedience. Over an alien enemy, our government can make no constitution law, or proclamation of obligatory force, because our laws bind only our own subjects, and have no extra-territorial jurisdiction. More

Health Care Nullification and Interposition

Leave a comment

by Michael Boldin

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law or regulation, it is passing legally-binding legislation that makes the federal act in question 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.

Current nullification efforts around the U.S. have states passing laws that effectively defy federal laws and regulations on firearms, marijuana, identification cards and more. In 2010, we expect to see similar legislation in response to Health Care, No Child Left Behind, Federalization of the Guard and more.

The most asked question is – once such a law is passed, what next?

STANDING BETWEEN

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state. More

Michigan:“Firearms Freedom Act” (HB-5232)

Leave a comment

image

National Expositor

Tenth Amendment Center – Introduced in the Michigan House on August 11, 2009, the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB-5232) seeks “to make certain findings regarding intrastate commerce; to prohibit federal regulation of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition involved purely in intrastate commerce in [the State of Michigan]; to provide for certain exceptions to federal regulation; and to establish certain manufacturing requirements.”

The bill was authored by Rep. Phillip Pavlov and currently has 44 co-sponsors.

While the HB5232’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.  It specifically states:

The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under amendments IX and X of the constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition. More

OBAMACARE NULLIFICATION: VIRGINIA HEALTHCARE FREEDOM ACT

Leave a comment

02-13-2010 4:27 pm – Donna Holt – Campaign for Liberty

VIRGINIA DID IT!  NULLIFICATION OF HEALTHCARE ACT!
The Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act Wins in Both Houses. Twenty-four hundred citizen grassroots activists made their voices heard at the state capitol bell tower on January 18th and the Virginia legislature listened.

Even before Obamacare is made federal law, the Virginia House and Senate has voted to stand up to the powers of Congress to mandate that every citizen purchase federally approved health care coverage.

Senator Jill Vogel’s SB417 passed on the House floor moments ago with a vote of 66 – 29. We expect Governor McDonnell will sign the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act into law the moment it crosses his desk.

The House version, HB10, was passed by the full House yesterday by a vote of 72 – 26. The bill is on it’s way to the Senate where it is expected to pass with bi-partisan support. But regardless, Virginia will not have to comply with federal mandates to purchase health care insurance once Governor McDonnell signs SB417, and likely HB10, into law.

Under Obamacare, if you file your tax return and fail to offer proof that you have a policy that puts you in compliance with the law, the IRS will try to penalize you, possibly by garnishing your state tax refund. If you live in Virginia, you will have the Commonwealth in your corner. Virginia’s Attorney General has vowed to challenge the feds in court should any citizen of Virginia be penalized for not purchasing federally approved health care insurance. This legislation also opens up a test case that could get ObamaCare thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court.

We have effectively reaffirmed our position that it is “we the people” that set the course for this nation. Governments are instituted by the governed and will not be usurped on our watch.

The Virginia 10th Amendment Revolution is victorious in winning back our state’s rights!!!

Yours in liberty,

Donna Holt
Campaign for Liberty

Nullification: It’s Official.

Leave a comment

LIVE LINK HERE:

by Derek Sherif 

I would like to start with two observations.

 

Before I explain why “official” nullification has already happened, let me briefly give some examples of what nullification is NOT.

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.

So just what IS “official” nullification you might be asking?

(click here to read the article now)

A Citizen’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Federal Government – MOU #3: Healthcare Reform

3 Comments

                        PPJG Original article

 September 29, 2009  

Author:  Marti Oakley (c) 2009  All RIGHTS RESERVED

 Tell a Friend 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MOU #3

Greetings:

Consider this a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to all members of the Senate, all members of the House, and to President Obama.  I am sure you are fully aware of the intent and implications of MOUs, as each of you, in one way or another, uses them to establish the outlining of agreements between yourselves, collectively or individually, concerning the agreements you have made with individuals acting as state’s representatives or agencies; generally to avoid Constitutional prohibitions on your intended actions and in avoidance of the Constitution.  I am using it in quite another fashion as you will see in the following text.

For you, MOUs are the terms and agreements of what, are in fact the first step in contractual agreements. MOUs are most often accompanied by cooperative agreements and funding (bribes) to implement what generally turns out to be egregious assaults to civil rights and liberties to the benefit of the federal government, linked so inextricably to corporate interests and global agreements.

Consider what follows a Memorandum of Understanding between me, Marti J. Oakley, and all of you, collectively cited in the above paragraph. More

%d bloggers like this: