Navigation

Resolution of the First Annual Tenth Amendment Summit

By on February 28, 2010 in Activism, State Sovereignty Movement, Video

The following statement was approved by candidates participating in the closed-door strategy meeting at the Tenth Amendment Summit – February 25, 2010 in Atlanta Georgia – Read by Ken Ivory at the all-day open session on Feb 26, 2010

We The People of the several States created a federal government to serve as our limited agent, delegating to the federal government only those limited and few powers listed in the Constitution, and no others.

We recognize the federal government has seized unlimited power over virtually every aspect of Americans’ lives in violation of the Constitution of the United States, specifically with respect to the Tenth Amendment.

We call upon freedom-loving citizens everywhere to stand with us, as candidates for state and federal office, to pass meaningful and sensible legislation to restore the most critical check and balance deliberately designed into our constitutional republic: that of strong, sovereign states.

We pledge to limit and restrain all federal government exercise of power that exceeds in any way the plain language of those few powers listed in the Constitution and to nullify all others that exceed such limit.

When we restore the balance of power between the states and the federal government according to the Constitution, our country will enjoy the dynamic blessings of liberty and prosperity.

Signed:

Ray McBerry
Adam Kokesh
Francisco Rodriguez
Ken Ivory
Lex Green
Valerie Sargent Myers
Roy Moore
Dan Eichenbaum
Dean Madere
Troy Stanley
Bill Taylor
Joe Leinweber, Jr.
Van Irion
Dean Moore
Michael Frisbee
Jeremy Jones
Neal Towey
Eric Forcade
Jason Sager
Steve Tarvin
Matt Sheffield
Charles Lincoln
Mark DeVol

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

,

21 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
DeanMoore
DeanMoore

I think that by November the 10th Amendment will be the defining issue in the 2010 election. The tea party movement is great, people getting politically active and involved is great, but they are targets, and will be continually bashed by the left. The Constitution is much harder to demonize and distort, even for those who try to distort it on a daily basis.

Guest
Guest

Do I smell a horde of Gov't trolls on this discussion. All trolls should be heartily ignored.

Edward Cline
Edward Cline

The feds will then have two choices: take out their guns, or back off. Pelosi has said she's willing to sacrifice the Democratic majority in Congress to get the health care or health insurance bill passed, she and Obama and Reid are willing to impose brand-name socialism on the U.S. regardless of the cost. They're in it for the malice they hold for this country, and for the credit of knocking us down in the eyes of Howard Zinn-species historians. Well, we patriots have a few tricks up our sleeves, too. Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, et al., can't live without slaves; but we, the people, can live without their likes. That's what we must show them. In the meantime, the Tenth Amendment should be readied for combat.

Rodman
Rodman

It's time we went back to basics! I'm sooooo tired of Washington MORONS stuffing their crap down my throat I could just scream!!! Think I'll go get another hit on my valium lick!

Edward Cline
Edward Cline

Why are you deleting what I just put up?

Edward Cline
Edward Cline

To continue: The feds will then have two choices: take out their guns, or back off. Pelosi has said she's willing to sacrifice the Democratic majority in Congress to get the health care or health insurance bill passed, she and Obama and Reid are willing to impose brand-name socialism on the U.S. regardless of the cost. They're in it for the malice they hold for this country, and for the credit of knocking us down in the eyes of Howard Zinn-species historians. Well, we patriots have a few tricks up our sleeves, too. Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, et al., can't live without slaves; but we, the people, can live without their likes. That's what we must show them. In the meantime, the Tenth Amendment should be readied for combat.

Edward Cline
Edward Cline

The Tenth Amendment may be this country's only hope of regaining American liberties if Obamacare and Pelosi-ship pass in defiance of the known opposition to it among the electorate. If enough states pass laws that nullify the alleged "public option" in the federal law, and, indeed the whole of that law, sparks are bound to fly. Then, depending on the spine of state legislatures, we'll see just how concerned Obama et al. are really are about the "public good." Of course, the best way to nullify the federal legislation is to bring an implementation-halting lawsuit against it, and tie it up in court for years until it's a dead letter. The next best course of action would be mass civil disobedience; we're already living in a semi-police state, what difference would it make if we inmates and indentured servants have a sit-down strike or "go Galt"?

JimInMT
JimInMT

Regarding your below post as well, going Galt may sound good - if you can convince all your neighbors to kick into the sit-down drag-out party... Otherwise, the Feds WILL simply do what they do best: pick us off one at a time, arrest and incarcerate, try and convict without trial, now thanks to Obama extending the Patriot Act for another year (HE LIES!). Remember Waco? Ruby Ridge? Wounded Knee (in the 1800's)? Feds will just use the military illegally against us when sheriffs and local cops refuse to stifle us. Hell, Janet Rhino even brought in French spy planes to fly above Mt. Carmel site - all because a freedom-loving group thought it best to fight back against despotic behavior. And even though Koresh and friends were surrounded and out-gunned, the FBI cried to Mommy "We're under siege!" Well, to use a line from one of THEIR favorite songsters: "The times they are a-changin'"... HANG ONTO your hats, keep your powder dry, and aim for their blood-thirsty eyes "when they come for you..."

B. Johnson
B. Johnson

"We recognize the federal government has seized unlimited power over virtually every aspect of Americans’ lives in violation of the Constitution of the United States, specifically with respect to the Tenth Amendment."

Although the corrupt federal government certainly deserves some of the blame for wrongly usurping state sovereignty over the last 100 years, the people deserve most of the blame, IMO.

More specifically, as I've ranted elsewhere, citizens have evidently been negligent in teaching the Constitution and its history to their children for many generations, particularly state sovereignty. As a consequence, voters have unthinkingly been abusing their voting power for the last 100+ years by electing lawmakers to both the federal and state governments who are as clueless about state sovereignty as the voters are.

Voters first destroyed the integrity of their state legislatures. This is evidenced by the state legislatures ratifying the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 17th Amendment. By doing so, state lawmakers unthinkingly giving up the voice of the constitutionally powerful state legislatures in the constitutionally humbled, but power-hungry federal government.

Voters then did an encore performance by using their new 17th A. powers to fill federal Senate seats with lawmakers who were as state sovereignty-ignorant as the lawmakers they had been electing to their state legislatures. This is evidenced by the federal Senate's failure to stop state power-usurping federal legislation inspired by constitutionally clueless FDR.

The result of decades of voter folly is that the constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes which pay for constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs, hard-earned taxpayer dollars which should never have left the states in the first place, have certainly come full circle for states like bankrupt California, for example.

Yes, the corrupt federal government is definitely a part of the problem. But with all due respect to the people who participated in this summit, I am concerned when they seem to be blaming only the federal government for big government woes.

MoT
MoT

Excuse me. Are you essentially saying that I and everyone else who recognizes "voting" for the fraudulent and thieving mechanism that it is, and has been in the hands of the minority who exercise said theft upon us, are then "guilty" for the resulting crimes, theft, and woe thus foisted upon us? That's absurd! That's like telling the victim of a crime he brought the act upon himself. You blather on about how the proles aren't educated in the nuances of a document that the very criminals who pretend to "uphold" it don't even bother to. The FedGov indoctrination camps, AKA "skrools", have no intention to illuminate anyone to such truths. Why should they? It would go against their agenda. Are you honestly saying that everyone

B. Johnson
B. Johnson

As I have indicated, corrupt federal lawmakers are only a part of the problem. Again, the consequence of widespread ignorance of the Constitution and its history, particularly where ignorance of state sovereignty is concerned, is the widespread abuse of voting power, IMO.

May the buyer beware.

And as I have mentioned elsewhere, given that candidate drivers are are required to pass a battery of driver's qualification tests before they are actually trusted to drive a vehicle on public roads, I believe that candidate voters likewise need to pass a basic constitutional law test before they can be trusted to vote, a test emphasizing state sovereignty. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the states from requiring such a voter's test.

Guest
Guest

B Johnson

I agree with your "voting test" idea. I've thought that for years. I completely disagree with the 'get out the vote' slogans we hear every election year. Do NOT make it EASIER for people to vote - make it harder!

My idea is to have a simple question next to each item/position to be voted on. If you answer correctly, your vote counts. If not, it doesn't.

For example, say you're voting for President of the US. The question might be:

"The term of office for President is:
a) 2 years
b) 4 years
c) 6 years
d) lifetime"

I don't care if you print it in Spanish and Braille and if you need readers there to read it to the illiterate. I also don't care if you have a 'cheat sheet' with you. I just want you to KNOW SOMETHING!

If you don't know the difference between the federal government and the state government, if you don't know the difference between the federal debt and the deficit, if you don't know there are 3 branches of government, etc., etc., etc., DO NOT VOTE. Your opinion is not valuable.

I'm sure the liberals/progressives would immediately sue under the old 'poll tax' idea that this is somehow discriminating against some protected class of people such as stupid people.

America has become too democratic and, as a result, our leaders reflect us too much. The last election was more like an American Idol contest for the next rock star than selecting a wise statesman leader of the most powerful nation on the planet.

We get what we deserve and we are clearly responsible for it.

The "government" doesn't exist in the real world. It's a concept. Government is just a group of people and we elect the leaders of government. In the end, it's our fault and it's our right to fix it!

B. Johnson
B. Johnson

"We recognize the federal government has seized unlimited power over virtually every aspect of Americans’ lives in violation of the Constitution of the United States, specifically with respect to the Tenth Amendment."

Although the corrupt federal government certainly deserves some of the blame for wrongly usurping state sovereignty over the last 100 years, the people deserve most of the blame, IMO.

More specifically, as I've ranted elsewhere, citizens have evidently been negligent in teaching the Constitution and its history to their children for many generations, particularly state sovereignty. As a consequence, voters have unthinkingly been abusing their voting power for the last 100+ years by electing lawmakers to both the federal and state governments who are as clueless about state sovereignty as the voters are.

Voters first destroyed the integrity of their state legislatures. This is evidenced by the state legislatures ratifying the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 17th Amendment. By doing so, state lawmakers unthinkingly giving up the voice of the constitutionally powerful state legislatures in the constitutionally humbled, but power-hungry federal government.

Voters then did an encore performance by using their new 17th A. powers to fill federal Senate seats with lawmakers who were as state sovereignty-ignorant as the lawmakers they had been electing to their state legislatures. This is evidenced by the federal Senate's failure to stop state power-usurping federal legislation inspired by constitutionally clueless FDR.

The result of decades of voter folly is that the constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes which pay for constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs, hard-earned taxpayer dollars which should never have left the states in the first place, have certainly come full circle for states like bankrupt California, for example.

Yes, the corrupt federal government is definitely a part of the problem. But with all due respect to the people who participated in this summit, I am concerned when they seem to be blaming only the federal government for big government woes.

easttex
easttex

How does one wanting freedom equate to slavery? America has been great since its founding because of freedom. Yes slavery is a part of our past...PAST. The freedom we are fighting for now is for our Constitutional rights granted us by God and our founding fathers. The race card has no place here.

David Corbin
David Corbin

Also, I need to point out there were many times state sovereignty was invoked in opposition to slavery. Read some about the federal laws that required runaway slaves to be returned and how sovereign states opposed it.

MickeyD
MickeyD

What is the difference in Slavery to the plantation and Slavery to the Government? Both offer free food, housing, and medical care. Oh, the government doesn't require you to work. Do you protest about slavery in the world today?
Let's pray you study European history to understand what the colonies were running from, and wanted to prevent - Tyranny! - before you reach voting age. Federal Government is charged with 17 duties, the rest goes to the States! Being a nanny isn't on the list! Equality of Opportunity is better than Equal Impoverishment. I dare youi to verify Lincoln's stand on Segregation...

Ghost Dansing
Ghost Dansing

Funny how State's Rights positions never involve anything that promotes the General Welfare. Slavery, Segregation, Civil Rights... always the bastion of the backward "status quo" philosophy or position. Always in favor of the most powerful in society. States and local governments, of course, always an easier place to attain and maintain narrow fiefdoms. Nothing really new here. We can find the same old arguments in the 19th and 18th Century. Thank God these people occasionally lose power by virtue of our Liberal system of Governance.

John
John

So your contention is that it is better to use violence or the threat of it, via the federal government, to force the changing or abolishment of laws and protect the people?

If that's the case, then why do we need a Constitution, why not just skip straight to a dictatorship?

We see all the wonderful things that did for the Russians, Germans, Chinese, etc., as well as the world. The Nazis killed more than 12 million people to protect their nation and race; Stalin killed more than 30 million people to protect from their own ignorance; Mao killed more than 43 million people to protect the Chinese people from those know-it-all intellectuals who were bent on the enslavement of the masses. They did so much good for their countries, and the whole world, and we just can't possibly comprehend their true virtue, compassion and genius.

You and everybody else that uses your above argument seem to forget some key facts:

1) Slavery was common and accepted, including in the the northern states, at the time that the Constitution was ratified.

The economies that used slave labor were dependent on that labor at that time. To immediately free all slaves and outlaw slavery would have destroyed those those economies, many of which were important to the economy as a whole, and supported the Revolution.

So it seems that it would be natural that those who benefited from those economies would not be in favor of the prospect of outlawing the very thing that benefited them.

Likewise, the people who disagreed with slavery realized the impact that an immediate end to slavery would have on those economies, and the economy of the country as a whole.

That is why the Constitution provided for an end to the importation of slaves, and everybody involved agreed that the issue of ending slavery should be done through peaceful means, with the understanding that it would not happen overnight.

2) Nobody from the liberal side, which is quick to insist that Americans should feel collective guilt for every bad and horrible thing done to other people in the past, seems very quick to assume any responsibility for the mess that was created by the liberals who advocated the immediate end to slavery and the freeing of all of the slaves, then promptly left all of those slaves, who now had no homes, no money, no way to provide for themselves, no education, etc., etc. to fend for themselves.

Slavery would have been abolished eventually, it was already becoming less necessary as the population of free people looking for work increased, and it was becoming less popular throughout the nation, as people knew that the institution of slavery was counter to all of the ideas that this country was founded on.

What many people agreed on, though, was that ending slavery was not as simple as just saying "let's end slavery on January 1st of 1850"; the economies that depended on slavery would now have to pay for that labor, and find a sufficient amount of labor with minimal disruption, and something had to be done to accommodate the freed slaves - they needed educations, jobs, food, land, etc.

Unfortunately, the liberal side has always been good at pushing to "do something now", without figuring out how that "something" will work and what the possible consequences of that "something" will be.

3) This country was founded, and the states joined the Union with the understanding that changes would be made in a manner that was as fair as possible to everybody, and in a manner that, if possible, benefited everybody, but if not, then at a minimum, in a manner that would least impact everybody.

They also knew that the process of dealing with issues would not necessarily happen quickly, and the time required to deal with issues would necessarily increase as the number of parties involved and the scope of the issue increased.

4) The Constitution does not give states free reign to do whatever they please, the Constitution tasks the government of the United States with protecting the freedoms of the people of the United States, that's where the Supreme Law of the Land part comes into effect.

However, the Constitution does not give the government of the United States the authority to resolve issues with or between the states through the use of force, except in the case of insurrections or rebellions.

The government of the United States is required to use the legal process to enforce the law.

5) The government of the United States is not given any power or authority by the Constitution to make or enforce laws that are outside authority granted by the Constitution, no matter how important the issue seems or how good everybody will feel about it.

That is why the Constitution creates a nation governed by the rule of law: The law is unemotional and impartial; man is emotional and willing to bend the rules to enable things that make them feel good.

dave
dave

as usual , a progressive socialist is crying that there agenda is under attack by those that cherish freedom . key words , backward thinkers never moving forward status quo , no evolution of the welfare state , ; think 100 years of progressive policies and now bankrupcy thats progress for sure . run back to your master and lick his boot !

Guest
Guest

You write:

"State's Right positions never involve anything that promotes the General Welfare."

Wow, really? NEVER?

"always the bastion of the backward"

Wow, really? ALWAYS?

Your welfare depends, ultimately, on your personal freedom. You and the general populace are much better off if you're free and that's the core of the original meaning of the US Constitution and the 9th and 10th amendments - whether you get it or not.

Big Government, "anti-tenthers" often point to slavery as their objection to the recognition of the rights of the people. Slavery is wrong and state sovereignty was invoked to resist it but you either didn’t know about that or didn’t bother to mention it since it completely refutes your position that state’s right positions “never” promote the general welfare.

Sadly, slavery exists in one form or another before, during and after the founding of this country. It will always exist and Big Government does not end it; to the contrary.

"Slavery, Segregation and Civil Rights" are 3 different ways to refer to the same thing. But, it sounds better to say it 3 different ways as if they are 3 different examples of the injustice that results from state sovereignty.

"We can find the same old arguments in the 19th and 18th Century."

That's insightful! You can find the 'same old' arguments about freedom and liberty as far back as you can find written history and philosophy. All that shows is that people have struggled for freedom throughout history.

The people who support the idea of freedom are fighting for everyone's rights, including YOUR rights - NOT the "most powerful in society."

While I wish there were a way to limit the benefits of the sacrifices made by those who understand the value of freedom only to those who deserve it, I can't see any practical way to do that. So, you benefit from those sacrifices whether that's just or not.

The bottom line is that you apparently don't agree with the idea of limited government but you don't offer any analysis of the positions taken by those who do. As a result, your comments are not persuasive.

JimInMT
JimInMT

Not only are GHOST DANSING'S arguments not persuasive, they are empty of substance, as you showed.
CONSERVATIVE means conserving or preserving the best of our cultures and the most freedom [rights] for each of us in as localized powers as we can, protected from distant "kings and queen" like those now entrenched in Washington DC - these goals were what the Ninth and Tenth amendments attempted to do. For some reason, those insulting advocates of tyranny are stuck on stupid in smoky haze who never learned to get along with those of us who did not do drugs and sex with them 'in the old days'. LIBERAL should mean spreading freedom as far as possible to those who adhere to civil rules of discourse and behavior. Again, those stuck on stupid never learned to play fair with others, always demanding to change rules if they were losing an argument or a game. Unfortunately, those who support the unlimited power to legislate in the out-of-touch Congress, whose unconstitutional abdication made up "legislative" powers for presidents, are the first ones to squeal like stuck pigs when some toy they want or event doesn't go their way. Sad sad sad.

Trackbacks

  1. Resolution of the First Annual Tenth Amendment Summit | Tenth Amendment Center « Bonfire's Blog says:
    February 28, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    [...] Resolution of the First Annual Tenth Amendment Summit | Tenth Amendment Center. [...]

  2. uberVU - social comments says:
    February 28, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by RonPaul_2012: Resolution of the First Annual Tenth Amendment Summit http://bit.ly/b6AUCF #tlot #tcot #RonPaul…

  3. Kerchner v. Obama, 10th Amendment says:
    March 2, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    [...] Resolution of the First Annual Tenth Amendment Summit [...]

  4. Tenth Amendment Center | The Ruthless Truth blog says:
    March 11, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    [...] Resolution of the First Annual Tenth Amendment Summit [...]

  5. Milestones in TAC history: first live event – Tenth Amendment Center Blog says:
    June 23, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    [...] It was the Tenth Amendment Summit held in Atlanta, Ga., Feb. 25-26, 2010. That summit produced a pretty cool resolution.  You can read it HERE. [...]

  6. Before It's News says:
    June 23, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    [...] It was the Tenth Amendment Summit held in Atlanta, Ga., Feb. 25-26, 2010. That summit produced a pretty cool resolution.  You can read it HERE. [...]