Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Michael Boldin
Today the federal government is literally everywhere. It has its nose in everything, and it has been that way for a long, long time.
In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government were to have the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, its power would continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on power.
The principle behind these resolutions, that the power of federal government must be checked by state governments, has gained resurgence in recent years, and is growing more every day.
Fourteen states are now defying federal laws on marijuana. Nearly two dozen states have rendered the Bush-era Real ID act null and void by passing laws or resolutions refusing to comply with it. Two states have already passed laws to effectively nullify some federal gun laws or regulations within their borders and more than two dozen others are considering similar legislation. More than a dozen states are considering legislation to nullify or effectively ban any future national health care plan in their state. Other states are considering legislation to refuse sending their national guard troops to wars deemed unconstitutional by state governors. And still others are looking at laws to resist cap and trade legislation.
The principle behind such legislation is 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 the state is concerned.
MORE THAN WORDS
But to simply declare a law null and void is not enough. Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. 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.
In his famous speech during the war of 1812, Daniel Webster said:
“The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments existâ€
Here Madison and Webster assert 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.
RESISTING FEDERAL INTRUSTION
The only way to restrain an out of control federal government is through the interposition of state authority to stand in defense of individual life and liberty. Those sound like nice words, but what does this mean precisely in application?
In order to restore usurped constitutional authority, a State must be prepared, at some point, to resist federal intrusion. In the American tradition, there is a long history of States doing just that. Georgia nullified the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chisholm vs. Georgia (1793); New England States nullified fugitive slave laws; and earlier New England townships nullified Jefferson’s embargo and the war of 1812 declared under Madison’s administration.
Jefferson said “he felt the foundations of the government shaken under my feet by the New England townships.†Wisconsin was nullifying what it declared to be usurpations by the Supreme Court into the 1850s. There was a time when the States kept the central government under control.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
When I talk to people about these principles – most agree, like Martin Luther King Jr. said in his famous “Letter from Birmingham jail,†that there is a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. But, they’ll often ask, even if states pass laws to nullify unjust and unconstitutional federal acts, the feds will still continue to tax us and punish our states financially for not complying – so what can we REALLY do?
One idea, which will take a great deal of courage on the part of the People and their state governments, is to establish what’s being called a “Federal Tax Escrow Account†or a “State Authority and Federal Tax Funds Act.â€
Already introduced in Georgia (HB877), Oklahoma (HB2810), and Washington (HB2712), such laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue. A panel of legislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to the federal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal and Constitutionally justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that are currently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people.
Will the federal government – and its courts – deem such laws constitutional? Unlikely, especially in light of the fact that as recently as 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that a person growing a plant on their own property, keeping it at home, and consuming it in their own home was somehow “interstate commerce.†Rulings such as these show that the courts have little, if any, respect for the rights of the people.
The Supreme Court, with only nine unelected judges, has become the most important policy making body in this country, and makes claim to be the final authority on interpreting the Constitution. Never in history have so many been ruled by so few.
The essential question, of course, will the people and their state governments have enough courage to push forward anyway? Only time will tell.
Click here for the Tenth Amendment Center’s legislative tracking page – for information on all current nullification efforts.
Click here for the Tenth Amendment Center’s Federal Tax Funds Act tracking page
Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin - and visit his personal blog - www.michaelboldin.com
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
If the states withhold tax money, so what? The federal reserve will print money anyway, which nobody can refuse due to legal tender laws. So the states will also have to affirm that federal currency cannot be legal tender because the federal government cannot declare anything a legal tender. There's a lot of string to untangle.
At some point you have to just say, fuck it, let's call a convention.
It dawned on me that when the citizens of 35 more states wake up to illegal federal taxes and start lighting fires under their respective state lawmakers to make legislation like the Federal Tax Funds Acts mentioned in this blog, then the following can happen. There will be enough states to make an amendment to the Constitution to repeal the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 16th Amendment which will get rid of direct federal taxes. This will make it more difficult for the corrupt Congress to lay illegal taxes like Obamacare-related taxes.
The Georgia law's clause: "50-37-10.
This chapter shall apply to federal taxes collected after the date on which this chapter takes effect, and, because the 'Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land,' [emphasis added], this article shall be enforced retroactively to repeal any unconstitutional federal mandates that have been imposed on the state."
Should to be included in every State's bill as the explicitly defined justification, this is a law of the United States, as Georgia is one of the United States, just as this law which is to enforce the supremacy Constitution of the United States over the unauthorized acts of Congress.
It is important that theses laws be placed into their proper context of ENFORCING the U.S. Constitution, as demanded by the same Constitution and recommended by the federalist papers.
That theses States are NOT in rebellion but rather congress is in rebellion against it's Constitutional limitations.
Thank you so much for providing such helpful information! I am a "tea bagger" from rural Louisiana and we "have troops on the ground" here, but need the type of understanding you are providing in order to go forward legally. Your work is essential to our progressing into full state sovereignty....please keep up the good work!
"The essential question, of course, will the people and their state governments have enough courage to push forward anyway? Only time will tell."
We already know the answer to that question.
And yes Mr. Boldin, some of us do have some ideas. Mine is to work from the ground up, take over enough state legislatures to call and control a Constitutional Convention, and take back our freedom.
The 2005 decision should tell us all that the Supreme Court isn't interested in state sovereignty.
The danger of a constitutional convention is that it could be used to throw out the excellent Constitution that our founders wrote. We must use other means.
I think a simpler perhaps not quite as fully effective measure that could be taken, is to simply start out with the State collecting all of the individual people's income taxes removing all of the individual information then shipping the lumb sum off to the Federal government.
The propose of which being to deprive the Federal government of the ability to uses the Income tax code against individual for anything other then simply raising revenue, as only the State would know weather or not you individually payed and how much, as well as what deductions you took.
Of course the State government would then have to either take responsibility for enforcing the Constitutional parts of the federal tax code itself(more than worth it in the long run) or simply be more selective about what information they alow to get passed on to the Federal government, say the State simply strips out the Health-care information.
Either way i think that simple measure to protect the rights of the individual people from federal usurpation is MORE then worth it!
At the very least it would be a important stepping block for the state to later uses the same program to retaliate against federal usurpation of it's people's right to govern themselves thou the state.
I just emailed my state senator and state representatives asking them to please introduce this legislation in the Arizona legislature. All 3 of them were sponsors of every nullification bill in AZ so far. Hope they will respond!
Note that the ill-conceived 16th Amendment, where state lawmakers unthinkingly gave Congress the power to tax citizens directly, made it easier for corrupt Congress to lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes on citizens. This is especially the case since citizens and their elected representatives in both federal and state legislatures evidently no longer understand or respect state sovereignty.
Chief Justice Marshall put it this way concerning Congress's limited power to lay taxes.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 1824. http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html
I am glad a few states have considered appropriating IRS money and delegating a portion to the Fed Gov.
If you really want to control the federal government and it's minions Repeal the 17th amendment. Thereby regaining control of our senators and congressmen.
TandRsphotos@yahoo.com
The best way to control them is through the pocket book.
I agree with this statement. This is huge in the fact that the state lost a very important and effective point of representation in DC. By the States General Assemblies electing or appointing its senators to Congress, the State Government would have a more representative voice in what legislation is passed and how it will effect their respective states. By electing senators in general elections, as a congressman is, you have reduced the effectiveness of the office by eliminated another designed check and balance mechanism.
This is an excellent article and point. I didn't realize Washington state had also considered the tax escrow idea in addition to working on nullifying federal health care intrusions into their state. Who would've thought such legislation would come out of such a Democrat state?! It seems the people and states are finally waking up!
There's some good people in WA - on both the left AND the right. The key is to get the mindless DC lovers on both sides to realize that most issues are best dealt with close to home.
I actually think that a lot of people on the left will support the power of the tenth amendment once show how powerful it can be to get the things they want done with it. There is no need for deception. We can just point out the power of federalism for advancing one of their causes and disagree with their cause at the same time.
I think any law that does this will have to be carefully constructed in such a way that it would be legal to send the money to the state first instead of the IRS. Perhaps the state law can decree that the state will pay the income tax for each citizen thus putting itself in the role of payer to the IRS. The state will then collect what every they payed from the citizen themselves.
any ideas? I doubt that the feds would ever give "permission" to do such a thing....do you?
Sovereigns need not to ask for permission... and the states are sovereign in anything they have not specifically delegated to the federal government.
The idea that taxes on the individual American are billed to the states is in perfect harmony with the constitution - art 1, sec 9, cl 4, and it is a thoroughly American way to do it. Only in a monarchy does every "subject" answer directly to the general government. The idea that every American must report all earnings, resulting from the conduct of their personal affairs, to the federal government is outrageous and was at no time contemplated by the founders - so far as I can find. The only time an American should find themselves in a personal relationship with the federal government, and thus personally liable for payment of federal tax, is when they become the recipient of a federal benefit, i.e.: federal employment; incorporation under US law; federal occupational license; social security or other welfare program, or if they are residing in a territory or federal enclave under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States government. Perhaps the greatest liberty secured by the constitution is our right to conduct our personal affairs in quiet anonymity, free from government intrusion. If the federal government will not perform it's assigned duty to secure the blessings of liberty, then the states must interpose to do so.
I've had several people here contact me (strider1955@gmail.com) asking for the document I compiled back in 1999 on this subject. Looks like our efforts are bearing some fruit. This is great news!
What is so wrong with Article I of the U.S. Constitution? Can any of you show, chapter and verse, where it was repealed, modified, or annulled? (Parallel legislation regarding other subjects does not count as an answer.)
I think that the eight justices nominated by Constitution-ignoring FDR by the early 1940s scandalously repealed Article V and the 10th Amendment from the bench. These justices did so by perverting the Founder's intentions for the general welfare and commerce clauses, IMO, so that Congress could bypass Article V for the new powers it wanted.
In fact, the Wickard v. Filburn opinion contains the following statement about state sovereignty, the most watered-down reference to state sovereignty that I've seen.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit in the status of statehood." --Justice Jackson(?), Wickard v. Filburn, 1942. http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html
The above statement treats state sovereignty as mere rumor, IMO.
Tenther Radio!
"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."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by RonPaul_2012: ResistDC: The Federal Tax Funds Act http://bit.ly/5Fp6VU #tlot #tcot #RonPaul…
[...] ResistDC: The Federal Tax Funds Act | Tenth Amendment CenterWhen I talk to people about these principles – most agree, like Martin Luther King Jr. said in his famous “Letter from Birmingham jail,†that there is a moral responsibility… [...]
[...] ResistDC: The Federal Tax Funds Act | Tenth Amendment Center When I talk to people about these principles – most agree, like Martin Luther King Jr. said in his famous “Letter from Birmingham jail,†that there is a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. But, they’ll often ask, even if states… Letter From Birmingham Jail – on Twingly [...]
[...] government and restore it to the states? Then support this act that is still in it's infancy. ResistDC: The Federal Tax Funds Act|Tenth Amendment Center Tenth Amendment Center| State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act Legislation such as this [...]
[...] which would require the state to interpose against the IRS and withhold tax funds from D.C. Click here to read more about this [...]
[...] agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal [...]
[...] agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal [...]
[...] agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal [...]
[...] Already introduced in Georgia (HB877), Oklahoma (HB2810), and Washington (HB2712), such laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue. A panel of legislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to the federal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal and Constitutionally justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that are currently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people. [from Resist DC] [...]
[...] agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal [...]
[...] agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal [...]
[...] agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal [...]
[...] agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal [...]
[...] agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal [...]
[...] the Tenth Amendment Center One idea, which will take a great deal of courage on the part of the People and their state [...]
[...] agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal [...]
[...] agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal [...]
[...] agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal [...]
[...] ResistDC: The Federal Tax Funds Act. A practical approach to dealing with the typical response of a tyrannical federal government to nullification. What to do when the government threatens to withhold federal money from states. Contact your state legislators and governor to ensure this act becomes part of any nullification legislation. Are you a Tea Party leader or part of a Tea Party, 9/12, or like-minded group? If so, this is they type of grassroots activism you are cut out for. If you are not, become a member or leader, or join the TAC as a volunteer. [...]
[...] ResistDC: The Federal Tax Funds Act. A practical approach to dealing with the typical response of a tyrannical federal government to nullification. What to do when the government threatens to withhold federal money from states. Contact your state legislators and governor to ensure this act becomes part of any nullification legislation. Are you a Tea Party leader or part of a Tea Party, 9/12, or like-minded group? If so, this is they type of grassroots activism you are cut out for. If you are not, become a member or leader, or join the TAC as a volunteer. [...]
[...] ideas emerge, such as the Federal Tax Escrow Account. This would allow states to collect all taxes and only send money to the federal government if we [...]
[...] agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal [...]
[...] agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal [...]
[...] the 10th Amendment Center: Already introduced in Georgia (HB877), Oklahoma (HB2810), and Washington (HB2712), such laws would [...]
[...] From the 10th Amendment Center: Already introduced in Georgia (HB877), Oklahoma (HB2810), and Washington (HB2712), such laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the states Department of Revenue. A panel of legislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to the federal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal and constitutionally justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that are currently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people. [...]