by Michael Boldin
Now that Heath Care legislation has passed, the obvious question for opponents is this: Now What? My answer is best summed up with just one word:
Marijuana.
No, I don’t mean that you should go out and smoke away your anger and frustration. Instead, you should feel empowered. The best way to explain this is by telling the story of a disabled mother from Northern California.
ANGEL’S STORY
Angel Raich has been permanently disabled since 1995. She has an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder and other serious medical conditions. In 1997, her doctor felt that marijuana would be an effective medication.
Angel used homegrown marijuana, and she and her physician claim that it’s helped significantly. You may not agree with Angel’s choice, but it’s one made in accordance with California state law, which allows for such use. The federal government, however, has not shown much respect for state laws in recent decades, and chose to take action. After DEA agents seized and destroyed all six of her marijuana plants, she sued to stop them from doing so again.
The suit went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in Gonzales v Raich, Angel lost. The 2005 ruling made clear that the federal government did not recognize state laws authorizing the use of marijuana ““ in any situation.
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
The court ruled that control over a plant grown and consumed on one’s own property was authorized under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “regulate”¦commerce among the several states.” It has never been amended.
Like any legal document, if the words of the Constitution mean today what they meant at the moment it was signed, we must understand just what those words meant at the time of its ratification.
There’s been a lot of scholarly research on this clause, especially the word “commerce” itself. Without getting into the long details of it all, it means this: Congress is authorized to make uniform national rules on the trade and exchange of goods (and related activities like their transportation) that cross state borders. On top of it, the word “regulate” meant to “make regular” ““ that is, to specify how these transactions may be conducted. Regulate did not mean ban, prohibit, or mandate. These words have different meanings.
With this in mind, the Supreme Court, which is not a set of nine infallible gods, ruled incorrectly. But rule, they did. Thus, all three federal branches agreed that State-level laws allowing marijuana were a no-go. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas gave a stark warning:
“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption”¦then Congress’ Article I powers”¦have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”
RESIST DC
Even though she lost the case, Angel indicated she’d continue to use marijuana. At the time of the ruling, there were 10 states that had such laws. Not one of them has been repealed. Since then, another 4 states have passed similar laws, and many others are considering them, including South Dakota, Kansas, and New Hampshire.
Today, over half a million people are registered users of medical marijuana, and estimates say that millions more use the plant without registration. What’s been the result? The federal government will occasionally arrest some high-profile users, but taken in the perspective of the multitudes consuming the plant, the threat is quite low.
And, in mid-2009, recognizing a need for “efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources,” the Justice Department announced that it would back off the prosecution of medical marijuana patients even further.
HUH?
You might be asking, “How does this apply to healthcare mandates?” Well, the answer is pretty simple. When enough states pass laws defying federal laws, and enough people actively defy them too, D.C. simply doesn’t have the manpower to arrest and prosecute all of us.
This kind of activism ” while it clearly carries personal risk ” should be a real blueprint for people that have been consistently unable to find constitutional relief in Congress, the Executive, or the Courts.
Marijuana users: Love ‘em or hate ‘em, but show some respect for them, as many have suffered greatly for doing what they believe is right. People who believe strongly about other issues, like health care mandates, would do well to learn from them.
What should be done about federal control over health care? The same thing that should be done for every unconstitutional federal law, regulation, or mandate – Nullify Now!
Michael Boldin [send him email] 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.
Excellent. I have just copied the boiler plate for the nullification and will be sending it out to our representatives in the Assembly and Senate in New York.
Can we include SSI and Medicare and Medicade. The savings will be huge. Remove the Gov. from our life. It would really be a great country with out these commie programs.
Yea really great; Dave
How can you save money on something that doesn't exist? I mean, no one actually believes that there is any money in the social security "fund," do they? That money got spent on other things long ago.
The Japanese and Chinese are going to 'repeal' social security and medicare for us, so don't worry about that. These programs are bankrupt and unsustainable.
I really do thank God For Americans such as Chuck Baldwin and The Tenth Amendment Center. In 2005 I was charged with interstate commerence and sent to a federal prison for mere possession of a pistol on my own private property. I could clearly show that the gun was for self defense of my own property, but the federal courts didnt care. They wouldnt even allow me to submit into evidence all the police reports that I had filed for why I had a gun. The worst part is, they had me charged and facing not less than 15 years to life in prison. They pretty much made me go work for them as an inmformant putting my life, children's lifes, and family's life in danger. That's the only reasom in not in prison today. That wasnt justice…that was tyranny.Power currupts…absolute powe currupts absolutely. I clearly see and understand why our Founding Fathers claimed their independence, set up a very limited fereral government, and gave us our Bill of Rights.
“Power currupts…absolute power currupts absolutely.”
This has got to be one of the most potent & truthful statements of all time. The more a person learns about our Founders,in contrast to today’s realities, as Jim says, the more one sees how clearly THEY saw – and how brilliant and as close to perfect as humanly possible their solutions – our Contitution & the Bill of Rights – were…and still are.
Michael, I have great respect for you and this website. Yes, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause by all three branches of the Federal government is a mess. It's misapplication has left us with a Federal government with no constraint. But you have understated the difficulty we will face in nullification efforts of the health care nationalization law that just passed. The marijuana situation is a useful point of reference with regards to principal. However, from a practical perspective there is a huge difference. Sure, the Federal government has not been very diligent about enforcing the Federal marijuana laws. But as Wyatt Earp said to Johnny Ringo in the movie Tombstone, "I'm not gonna fight you Ringo, there's no money in it"…continued
To claim that the federal government has not been very diligent on marijuana is a major understatement. Here in California, people have been going to prison for years because they do what they believe is right on this issue. Only after more and more people and states have gotten on board has the federal government's diligence been reduced. And, it's not gone yet.
Health care will carry the same kind of risk – and will likely be even more difficult. But to think the IRS is significantly more dangerous than the DEA is to underestimate the tenacity of all federal thugs.
Sadly, I'll bet that if these Californians who have been going to prison – and maybe their attorneys – knew a little more about corrupt Congress v. 10th A. protected state sovereignty that they could have saved themselves some trouble.
Or just like some in the medical industry who cannot afford to cure their patients, maybe attorneys need a way to hold onto their clientele.
(continued)…The cost of enforcement far exceeds any benefit – perceived or monetary. There is no practical way for the Federal government to enforce this law. Health Care legislation is a whole other story. There is a whole lot of money involved and the Federal governement already has many of the enforcement mechanisms in place including the IRS. Unlike with marijuana laws, the Federal government will exercise it's full power and might to enforce the new health care law. It will go to the mat on this one.
I agree Sir the government will go to the mat on health care -and running giant prisons in all states under federal contract is VERY profitable! The Federal government has people in high places and any time money is to be made hand over fist the worst of the worst become the tip of the spear at capitalizing on human misery. (I worked for a company called MTC who ran JOB CORPS and Prisons in a number of states. These guys where federally funded and only cared about making money, so having more heads in lockup to them means bigger checks. (and the only group worse then the DEA could be the IRS.) -these wars on stuff are really wars on free people's rights.
Note to coincident with the health care legislation, the IRS hired more agents and requested any number of shotguns. Looks like they anticipate great resistance to this overbearing and unconstitutional law.
It's already happening in enough state legislatures to call a constitutional convention. I don't know if it meets your technical definition of "nullification," but state legislatures flipping the bird at Congress works for me. Then we call the convention (per Article V 2/3 of states needed) and write Amendment 28 – "Congress shall make no law mandating the purchase of any product or service."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
[For a light hearted take on our present peril]
We can kill the bill by getting rid of the income tax amendment. There is no way they can enforce this without the income tax. Kill the income tax and you will kill the bill.
How about attempting, on parallel paths, to NULLIFY and DE-FUND any LAWS and AGENCIES, respectively, that are inconsistent with the original intent of the constitution?
This is essentially, the outlook for 2011. Starve the beast.
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
How about this: Amendment 28 – "Congress shall make no law BANNING OR mandating the purchase of any product or service."
What abuse do you have in mind correcting with the "ban" clause?
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS!!! Ever since my college days in the 1960s, the radical left (I was fairly radical at the time and know the intentions of the left) has been wanting a constitutional convention. You never know what the outcome would be. We could lose many rights of give the federal government more power if the radical left, the Communists, are able to co-opt the process. It is much, much safer to amend the constitution – or better yet, simply clarify and reinforce the 2nd and 120th amendments.
As I read the Consitution, anything that comes out of a Convention still requires ratification by 3/4 of states. So, I am unworried about radicals stocking the pond at a convention. Am I wrong about the Contstitutional requirement?
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
I just sent this to my state senator in PA. I am also going to a townhall meeting he is holding tonight. It's time to stand up.
Nice article, and to the point. Good job, Michael.
I will partly echo Jonathan Russell's point, and say that a big difference between pot and health care lies in the presumption of guilt involved.
Regarding pot, everyone is presumed innocent. You're then alleged to be guilty if they catch you with it. So, you HIDE it.
Regarding health insurance. There will be a mechanism that requires you to furnish proof or face a penalty. In other words, everyone is presumed guilty, and HIDING reaffirms the presumption.
The burden is entirely different. It makes nullification, on a personal level, that much more difficult. You can't secretly nullify, like the vast majority of pot users.
No doubt it is a different scenario – the lesson I tried to provide here is simple, though – we the people are in charge and when enough of us resist, we CAN turn it around. Standing up against IRS fines will be far more difficult, but already, they can take up to 3 years or longer to contact people about a perceived discrepancy.
Like any nasty bureaucratic monster, the IRS is something to fear, but if we recognize that they're quite fallible and inefficient too – it will put things into better perspective.
Tougher than marijuana resistance – yes. But many people have sacrificed themselves to prison to stand up for what they believe on that issue. Will people do the same for this one? Only time will tell if Americans have courage, or just want to complain with the hopes that some thugs in D.C. will change things for them.
HIDING your activity is a good idea to avoid being the lightning rod" for aggressive prosecution. However, such does not make the point that the federal government has no legal right, according to the constitution's original intent.
RESPONSE FROM JUDD MATHENY I SENT TODAY ABOUT NULLAFICATION!
> Subject: RE: NULLIFY NOW! Mr Matheny I need your help!!!
> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:31:24 -0500
> From: rep.judd.matheny@capitol.tn.gov
> To: cleason35@live.com
>
> I am a prime sponsor of the bill that would nullify and I am also encouraging the AG to file suit. Gov. Bredesen has said he won't oppose it, but we are and will. I promise we are kindred spirits on this issue and we will stop it. It's going to be rough, but we have to repeal it, sue over it, put up roadblocks and do whatever it takes. It is a priority for many of us, and the next Governor.
>
RESPONSE FROM JUDD MATHENY I SENT TODAY ABOUT NULLAFICATION!
> Subject: RE: NULLIFY NOW! Mr Matheny I need your help!!!
> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:31:24 -0500
> From: rep.judd.matheny@capitol.tn.gov
> To: cleason35@live.com
>
> I am a prime sponsor of the bill that would nullify and I am also encouraging the AG to file suit. Gov. Bredesen has said he won't oppose it, but we are and will. I promise we are kindred spirits on this issue and we will stop it. It's going to be rough, but we have to repeal it, sue over it, put up roadblocks and do whatever it takes. It is a priority for many of us, and the next Governor.
>
Great job, Cheryl! Did you send him a link to our nullification legislation? Whether the current efforts pass or not, this is something that should be considered in TN in the coming session. The time to get the ball rolling is now.
Also, have you joined our TN chapter yet?
I think if anyone is scared that removing federal restrictions on drugs will legalize drugs is failing to realize STATES still have laws that make it illegal. It would still be illegal in all fifty states which would still make it illegal across the land. The federal government should look to save some money and stop prosecuting drug offenders and let the states do that.
The act of not 'complying' is nullification by action. A law that is not enforced is no law at all.
How ever a better way would be for all the AC's to submit this issue to the voters this fall … and should we get 38 states to agree, then that quorum has the same weight as an amendment to the Constitution The order of power as defined in/by the Constitution is 1) the people, 2) the States, and 3) the United States (Federal Government) … and a majority can over rule the law, AND the Supreme Court (who also works for WE the People).
Provided that we can maintain the right to a trial by a jury of peers (that promise is on its deathbed in this country, unfortunately), and build the 'freedom sentiment' strongly enough among our peers, there is always the option of 'jury nullification' as well.
But we'll keep borrowing money to keep the illusion alive until there is no one willing to lend to us.
To begin with, I'm not up to speed with Gonzales v. Raich, but I'll surmise that Gonzales’s attorneys didn't bring up the following points when they argued her case before the USSC.
First, contrary to the USSC’s pro-big federal government interpretation of the Commerce Clause, evidently based on perversions of that clause by FDR’s outcome-driven justices in the 1940s, note that Jefferson had explained the scope of the Commerce Clause differently from the way that justices interpreted it. Jefferson had clearly indicated that Congress cannot use the clause as an excuse to interfere with intrastate commerce.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.a…
Or does the USSC cherry-pick Jefferson’s writings when it helps them to argue special-interest perversions of the Constitution, as with the establishment clause in Everson v. Board of Education, but then throw Jefferson into the back of a black basement closet when his writings would hurt their argument? In fact, I cannot find a reference to Jefferson’s writings in Gonzales.
Also, can anybody find a reference to Linder in Gonzales, the following excerpt from Linder?
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925. http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html
Maybe the Court overlooked Linder? Corrections welcome.
In fact, I noticed, that while Congress appropriately complied with Article V to be granted an exception to the Commerce Clause via constitutional amendment where the federal government’s control of intrastate intoxicating liquors is concerned, there seems to be no amendment to justify making the CSA. Congressional oversight perhaps?
But I will note that, surprisingly, there are several rare references to the 10th A. in Gonzales, most references, it seems, in the dissenting section.
Finally, regardless that dissenting justices in Gonzales couldn’t stop the activist justices from applying the USSC's traditional perversions of the Commerce Clause to Gonzales, where were state lawmakers after this case was decided? Did state sovereignty-ignorant state lawmakers mistakenly regard the USSC’s decision as final? After all, earlier generations of state sovereignty-savvy state lawmakers might have considered "overturning" the USSC's anti-state sovereignty decision in Gonzales with an appropriate amendment to the Constitution. Likewise for Roe v. Wade. Note that the 11th and 16th Amendments are examples of the states overturning unpopular USSC decisions with amendments to the Constitution.
What a mess! :^(
Angel Raich had as her council, none other than Randy Barnett – one of the nation's leading scholars on the 10th Amendment. He has mentioned that the courts, in essence, laugh at the 10th, and just will not consider it.
As far as the commerce clause – Barnett might be the leading scholar, or at worst, one of the top 2 or 3, on the subject. His research on the commerce clause itself is what brought most of its original meaning to light. A quick google search on the subject will give you a wealth of info.
Thanks. As much as I rant about activist justices who trample the Constitution, I should have known better.
With respect to legal actions, did you all view this YouTube which was posted on the blog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e0vcgE_tAw
Why will this web page be offline come Monday?
Excellent and on point. To blunt federal overreach on a host of constitutional issues, in my blog, Opinerlog, I have advocated moral suasion, law suits, simply ignoring unlawful/nuisance mandates, nullification (with teeth and will of the people mobilized behind it), and civil disobedience. HOWEVER, should all of that fail, we must never, ever forget that our Founders clearly tasked "we the people" with the responsibility, indeed the duty, to restore constitutional order. If that means rebellion and/or secession, then so be it. Ensuring Constitutional governance and supremacy takes precedence over peaceful accommodation, aka appeasement. In far too many instances, case law over the years has served no purpose other than the mangle and misinterpret the Constitution. Case law is fine, but NOT if it violates the original meaning, spirit and intent of the Constitution and the Founders who authored it. When we stray from the Constitution, we invite tyranny. And that's where we find ourselves now. It must be stopped–NOW!!!!
Regarding case law and supreme court decisions, recall that the Dred Scot decision represents the supreme court "changing it's mind" related another court's interpretation.
Freedom and rights are the aspect which are very important to be taken care of and has to be utilized fully according to our wish and requirement. One knows about the rights and the laws they have to follow.If they break it then are the guilty ones and have to suffer under the lawsuits.
anthony morrison