Unconstitutional: Search Warrants Based on Governmental “Need”
by Michael Boldin
When Washington D.C. violates the constitution – as it does every single day – the essential question is – “what do we do about it?â€
For countless decades, Americans have been responding through protests, lawsuits, and “voting the bums out.† Yet, year in and year out, federal power always grows.  And it doesn’t matter which political part is in power, or what person occupies the white house either.
THE RIGHTFUL REMEDY
In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.†[emphasis added]
Notice that TJ didn’t advise us to use nullification as a remedy “once in a while.† And he certainly didn’t tell us that a nullification is the rightful remedy after “we vote some bums out†or “we sue the federal government in federal court†or after anything else for that matter.  Jefferson was pretty straightforward and recommended that every single time the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it in the constitution (there’s about 30 powers and nothing more), that we’re to reject and nullify those acts on a state level as they happen.
HAPPENING NOW
Already, more than two dozen states have virtually stopped the 2005 Real ID act dead in its tracks. How? By refusing to implement it. Â Fifteen states – most recently Arizona – are using the principles of the 10th Amendment to actively defy federal laws (and a supreme court ruling, too!) on marijuana. Â Eight states have passed Firearms Freedom Acts in an attempt to reject some federal gun laws and regulations. Â And seven states have passed Health Care Freedom Acts to block health care mandates from being enforced.
NULL. VOID. OF NO EFFECT.
Get used to reading these words, because the political climate is starting to swing a new direction. Â There is a growing number of people in America that are recognizing a simple truth – asking, demanding, or suing to get the federal government to fix problems caused by the federal government just doesn’t work.
Take, for example, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, first introduced in Texas as HB297, and now also introduced in Montana (SB161), Wyoming (HB0035), Oregon (SB498) and Maine (LD58).  Here’s an excerpt:
“the federal law known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,†signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid, shall not be recognized, is specifically rejected, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect.â€
But these bills, as introduced in Texas, Maine, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming are far more than mere declarations or position statements
ENFORCEMENT
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 required of nullification laws to be successful — 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.
All five bills explicitly include this principle, and if passed, would impose penalties on federal agents for attempting to enforce National Health Care mandates in their state.  For example, from Wyoming’s HB35:
Any official, agent or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this article shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.
Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect approximately ten states to introduce such bills in the 2011 legislative session.
*******
CLICK HERE – to view the TAC’s Health Care Nullification Act legislative tracking page.
CLICK HERE – to view the full text of TAC’s model legislation – the Federal Health Care Nullification Act.  Please send it to your state reps and senators for introduction in your state today!
NEXT STEPS
Michael Boldin
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, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)
- Samuel Adams on Taxation - April 16, 2016
- A 10-Step Program for Constitutional Recovery - December 31, 2015
- Following My Mom’s Advice: It’s Not Easy to Ask for Help - December 1, 2015
Related posts
Sounds like the Tenth Amendment is alive and well.
http://www.TenthAmendmentParty.com
type in financialfraud.org soundmoney theprovocateurnetwork video american dream
Yes it is,its just been asleep for awhile. Now it has awaken to take it's rightful place at the table.
It's alive … collecting / assembling it's MoJo.
This is great news! Now we need to get all the states on-board.
If all 50 states seceded en masse from the Union, would there still be a Federal Government of these Dis-United States of America? Would Federal property on sovereign state territory then be subject to seizure under international law applying to sovereign powers?
It's clear the Federals via the Fed are pulling the economic plug on the individual states. Turnabouts is fair play. All the states should pull the plug on the Feds and the Fed, and go back to the Articles of Confederation, but retain the original Bill of Rights as applicable to all 50 states.
Secession, the ultimate remedy, is needed ONLY if a determined nullification effort and/or widespread civil disobedience fail to restore co-equality between the States and the People. Doubtless, a determined nullification movement and assertive civil disobedience will qucikly restore constitutional order.
Manditory sentencing is unfortunately a modern invention. Too bad. The only mistake the Founding Fathers made was not incorporating manditory prision sentences for any Federal employee elected or appointed, found guilty of purposely ignoring or thwarting the primary laws of the land as embodied in our beloved Constitlution and Bill of Rights and that definitely extends to the quasi-federalists like the "Federal" Reserve bankers!
Coconut; please read amendment#14 section #3. oath to uphold, protect and defend the constitution, and the penalty for those who display any insurrection or rebellion against the same(oath). We the people must learn to enforce this and also make congress define -Art.#3.- hold their offices during good behavior, so we can get rid of renegade justices who have their own agenda, instead of being the guardians of the constitution for which they were appointed. Rod.
This legislation seems too broad to be legal. There places where the Feds have jurisdiction to regulate (very few admittedly). In such places, State law theoretically must yield under the "supremacy clause." I think attacking expansive federal legislation under the Commerce Clause was useful, but I feel this may go too far to accomplish anything as there is no basis it will be upheld by any court.
who said anything about getting approval from some politically-connected lawyers in DC? and where does the supremacy clause authorize federal supremacy on anything but those powers delegated to it in the constitution?
Simply put, judicial overreach is every bit as insidious and unconstitutional as is legislative or executive overreach.
The Supremacy Clause has been deliberately MISREAD (note I didn't say misinterpreted) by proponents of an expansive federal government. Read the Clause and it's clear meaning is profoundly obvious. Laws, both at the state and federal levels, are "supreme" only insofar as those laws are constitutional.Nothing more, nothing less. Were it otherwise, then why did the founders bother enumerating powers of the states and the federal government, or, for that matter, why did they bother carefully crafting our Constitution in the first place.
In short, none of the fed branches of gov't are supreme, all-powerful. State and federal powers are, by original design, co-equal.
Yup. The key here lies with a number of scattered States simply saying "We choose to ignore you, federal govt, and we will put your people in jail if you screw with us." One State would be out of luck, a Ft. Sumpter redux would lose public sympathy…but passive resistance has worked before and can work again. The federal govt. 's biggest weakness is complete lack of sympathy from the People
The blueprint? medical marijuana – 15 states defy DC on this issue and they are pretty much getting away with it. People should look to this example and learn how to apply it to other issues….
I support the measure 100% it seems the only way to get our country back is to kick the feds out of our business and our states. what ever it takes
Stand Up America Announces State Nullification Act
BIGFORK, Mont., Jan. 14, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — The United States Patriots Union, in strategic partnership with Stand Up America and our joint 2011 National Call to Action, have launched a nationwide initiative to introduce and pass broad-based state nullification legislation in all fifty states. We present this model legislation, The State Nullification Reaffirmation Act, as a proposed state bill for the following reasons.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46868996/An-ACT-2-1-Bro…
Contact Information:
Scott W. Winchell
standupamericaused@gmail.com
951-767-0972
Hi, Mike,
At tonight's GOP Committee Meeting, I passed along the sample Texas healthcare nullification act, the 10th's brochure, supporting talking points and other supporting material to my State Senator and Assemblyman, both shakers and movers. Both they and their staff have assured me of their support and will keep me posted of developments as the "proposal" moves winds its way thru the political labyrinth which is Albany, NY.
great to hear, Jim – let us know how it goes!
If the writers of the Constitution did not intend to allow the Federal Government to have to power to force health insurance on the citizens, the why did the 5th Congress pass "An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen". Thomas Jefferson was President of the Senate and he voted for the act. Jonathan Dayton, who signed the Constitution, was Speaker of the House, and he also voted for passage. John Adams was our President, and he signed the Act into law. Surely they thought that requiring health insurance and having state run hospitals was allowed if they voted like they did.
I suspect you may be misconstruing the scope and intention of the Act in question. That said, what better way to constitutionally provide for the common defense than to provide the military with appropriate federally-funded medical services. Deliberately ignoring the medical needs of diseased and broken seaman and militiaman would violate a sacred public trust.
@jaxparrothead – Surely the founding fathers did NOT intend to allow the federal govt to force health insurance. Liberal democrats will suspend rational common sense to justify their tyranny and theft, including arguments that are so void of sense, one can't even debate them… as if the left had any brains to begin with. National health care is the first time in 223 years AmeriKans have been subjected to involuntary servitude. __"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." ~Jefferson__That is what National health care does, or will do, when they cut costs… and they will!
Steve,
I read the Act cited by @jaxparrothead, and trying to equate the provisions, scope and intent of that Act with Obamacare is a headlong leap into never-never land.
Hi, Bless Yous In Jesus Christ
I just picked up some astounding incredible unbelieving news on the http://www.RepublicBroadcasting.org.
The negro so called president has made a deal with China. They will start to send millons of Chinese to this country. The so called will start to build communities all over the country. The main purpose is to destroy America and to eleminate Christians and especially the white man. Let's sue the negro for not being an a legal citizen and lets send them back to Africa. Also, this president has been bringing in hundreds of thousands of negros. We have so many now. Were negros go they destroy. Also, lets we the people ourselves rise up and make citizens arrest against all these illegals before its to late. One more thing, our government has been stealing our waters to China. Ones this communist government of ours take over they will first start murdering Whites. "Lets have a paper trail when voting because our votes are being stolen all the time.
Robert,
If you aren't a dissembling leftist plant–but especially if you are–perhaps you need to tame your…exhuberance…and re-direct your creativity into more realistic and credible pursuits, failing which a cozy session with a psychologist may be in order.
His point about the paper trail to protect or vote is well said, but as for the rest, your assessment is on point.
CHECK OUT THIS LINK CONSERVATIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/cong…
DEFINITIONS:
CONSERVATIVE –
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. Traditional or restrained in style
PROGRESSIVE –
Moving forward; advancing. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods
I know which one sounds better, do you?
There is a big difference between promoting and effecting better conditions. The top down methods of the proggressives have a stifling effect on real proggress. Capitalism under Libertanian governace is far better suited to allow bright, hardworking,creative people to grow an economy which will provide opportunity for citezens to support themselves. The only things that grow under Proggressivism are government power and dependence, not to mention social ills.
I know which one sounds better,do you?
Matt,
Beyond simple lexicological definitions, there is a much, much bigger world out there. It's called reality within which certain changes demonstrably work and certain changes demonstrably do not work. History, a flawless and dispassionate teacher, clearly teaches that Progressivism, aka socialism/statism, simply doesn't work. It is economically and politically destructive of society and of individual freedom, plain and simple. Change in and of itself is not redeeming, nor is it always prudent. The results of change are what count. If it works well to everyone's benefit, then a society should, of course, adopt the change. Otherwise, we'd best leave ill-advised and poorly crafted economic and political change to the witless and incautious and to continue to build upon what we KNOW works.