States to DC: Back Off!

I recently had the opportunity to engage in a written interview with Danny de Gracia of The Washington Times Communities (TWTC). Read the exchange below and visit TWTC here for the full article published earlier this week.

*******

Question from Danny de Garcia: One of the terms that has entered the public’s ears these days is “states rights” followed immediately by “Tenth Amendment.” It’s definitely stirred a lot of curiosity and controversy alike throughout the political spectrum. How would you describe what states’ rights are to someone who has never heard of it before?

Michael Boldin: The Tenth Amendment is best thought of as an exclamation point on the Constitution. In legalese, the Tenth is known as a rule of construction, explaining how we’re supposed to read the rest of the document.

What does it say in simple, modern terms? Pretty much this: The federal government is authorized to do a limited amount of stuff. That stuff is found in the Constitution. Everything else, and I mean everything else, is left to the people of each state to determine how they want to handle it.

The government people in Washington DC hold the view that they can regulate and virtually control everything and anything that moves. Under the Founders’ Constitutional [view] – instead of the twisted version that these politicians and judges alike have foisted upon us for decades – such view is not just wrong.

It’s absurd – and dangerous. No person and no institution can be trusted with that kind of power.

DDG: Tell us a little bit about yourself and the Tenth Amendment Center. What got you started in advocating the Tenth Amendment and what led to you founding the organization?

Boldin: The best way for me to describe the Tenth Amendment Center and our work since we were founded in mid-2006 is through two great quotes from leading Founders, who were often at odds with one another.

Thomas Jefferson: “The several states comprising the United States of America are not united on a principle of unlimited submission to their general government.”

John Adams: “I would quarrel with both parties and with every individual of each, before I would subjugate my understanding, or prostitute my tongue or pen to either.”

Fact of the matter is this: like every political organization, the TAC has an agenda. Ours though is pretty straightforward – The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

DDG: It’s been suggested by some that rather than waiting for Congress to repeal “Obamacare” and other recent mandates that didn’t sit well with the states, local legislatures could use something called “nullification” to refuse to enforce it within their state borders. What exactly is nullification? Has it ever been used before?

Boldin: I’m glad you asked that as nullification which came right from prominent Founders is seeing a massive resurgence all over the country in recent years.

In fact, there’s so much nullification activity in state legislatures these days that we’re premiering a feature-length documentary film on the subject at CPAC this year. Nullification: The Rightful Remedy is showing at 5:30PM on Thursday, February 9th in the Citizens United CPAC Theater.

Nullification begins with the simple point that a federal “law” that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It’s a usurpation of power.

Both Jefferson and Madison gave us an important warning about power. If the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of their own powers – that power would always grow, regardless of elections, or protests, or lawsuits, or “voting the bums out.”

For countless decades these two men have been proven right. Year in and year out, federal power grows and your liberty diminishes. And it doesn’t matter which political party is in power, or what individual occupies the White House.

But really, the very best way to explain nullification is to explain what it 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 your own state.

So just what is nullification you might be asking?

Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist an unconstitutional federal law. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum.

It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce a particular federal law deemed to be unconstitutional.

DDG: In recent decades there seems to be a growing number of academics and politicians alike who believe in strong executive authority, that is the belief that the President of the United States can essentially do anything he wants – with or without the permission of Congress or the states for that matter. In 1973, Arthur Schlesinger bemoaned this trend with his book “The Imperial Presidency.” What is your thoughts on this? Do you think that the Presidency has overstepped its authority and grown too powerful?

Boldin: There doesn’t seem to be a single part of the federal government that has not overstepped its constitutionally delegated powers in massive ways. Today, we have a federal government that crosses the line almost constantly.

The federal government believes that it is authorized to tell us what size toilet we can have, what kind of light bulbs we can buy, what kind of plants we can grow and consume in our backyard, and soon – how much they can penalize us for inactivity. And that’s just scratching the surface.

Yes, the Executive Branch has overstepped its authority. Congress has overstepped its authority. The Courts have overstepped their authority. And many Federal departments and agencies shouldn’t even exist – if we care about the Constitution, liberty and prosperity, that is.

DDG: I hear pundits saying things like “the Federal government exists to protect me from my state government.” What would be your response to that?

Boldin: This statement couldn’t be further from the truth. Nowhere in the founding records is there any indication that the “People of the Several States” created a federal government to “protect them from state governments.”

Instead, they formed that government to take on roles they felt that the States were inadequately equipped for on their own. And, recognizing that unlimited power was likely the greatest threat to liberty, they did something unique in history, and wrote a Constitution to provide specific limits to federal power.

That doesn’t mean, however, that state governments are a bunch of angels. Many, if not most, of them are awful. But, when power is decentralized and dispersed over large areas, bad decisions are checked whereas one-size-fits-all “solutions” affect us all.

Think of it this way. If George W. Bush had been president of just Texas and Barack Obama presided only over Illinois – the world would likely be a much different – and better – place.

Maybe REAL ID, No Child Left Behind and TARP would’ve just hit Texas. And Illinois would’ve been stuck with Health Care Mandates, the NDAA, and others. As Ronald Reagan used to put it – when problems arise, you can still have a chance – to vote with your feet. This keeps bad governments in check far more than “voting the bums” out, which seems to only give us new bums every few years.

DDG: Last question. State legislatures all across the United States have started session. What would be your number one recommendation to state legislators this year?

Boldin: For those of you with children, when they hit two or three, they had something quite important to teach you. It’s just two letters – no.

Become a member and support the TAC!

When enough people stand up and say no to Washington D.C., and enough states pass laws backing their people up, it’s pretty difficult for the Federal Government to force their unconstitutional “laws,” regulations and mandates down our throats.

The Tenth Amendment Center has plenty of model legislation ready to go and we’re here to help. There are states all over the country considering bills on various issues to say no to Washington D.C.

The time for you to join them is now. Not next year, and not next fall. Not next month or next week.; Today, not tomorrow. Right now. Liberty and the Constitution need you.

About 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.

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?
8 comments
Dan Wiziarde
Dan Wiziarde

Reduce DC to its Constitutional confines and return the power to govern to the states where it belongs. Washington needs to get out of our lives and our wallets.

Hannah Pelham
Hannah Pelham

My sentiments exactly!! Yay 10th amendment center!!

Darold Boucher
Darold Boucher

@Steven Lechner..You have it right sir. My simple statement regarding Obumbler is if his lips are moving....He's Lying!

Steven Lechner
Steven Lechner

Obama's "backpeddle" with the Catholic church on contraceptives is BS. Here is the bottom line - The government - Obama - can't make make me eat an apple if I don't want to eat an apple - can't make me pay for an apple I am not going to eat - can't make me pay for an apple just because my neighbor wants to eat an apple. Call the White House at: 202.456.1111 and tell Obama to F*$& OFF!!!

Bob Greenslade
Bob Greenslade

Michael-nice interview.

I have one comment.

As you know, the 10th Amendment is a truism because the Constitution was constructed on the principle enumerated in the Amendment. If the Amendment had never been added the principle would not have disappeared. Too many people think the principle enumerated in the Amendment is the sole basis for the principle: powers not delegated are reserved because of the Amendment.

I hope you will consider making that point in future interviews.

WilliamSchooler
WilliamSchooler

@Bob Greenslade

Bob, I get you are well studied on the constitution, but I am not sure I fully get your suggestion. Too many people think a lot of things without ever delving in the pit.

One, none of these ideas shared in the constitution do a thing, only those actually using them do. Some use them to change or corrupt and others use them as intended because they know why. It is hard for me to get into the gospel of words and the almighty meanings some are so intent on displaying as the thing versus the act that shows it means anything at all and this the difference between those thinking anything and never showing the acts of.

Our founders, many of them were great minds but far from Gods and the symbols of their wisdom have surely shown us not to be the gospel. Of good intent yes, of great concept absolutely, as great map builders absolutely not or there would be no way to pervert such concepts.

Every concept I have seen by Michael and the 10th amendment center act in total support of the concept as we understand it, meaning in total defiance of this corrupt Government which is the only reason to have such a constitution or amendments at all. To be free from this ridiculousness is Liberty, is the instrument of this constitution when delivered in clear form.

Yet some will swear some symbol or word exchange is finite and must be followed like doctrine and is usually some attorney prescribing some made up group of symbols to interpreted some bogus law claiming some false authority over by the mere symbols themselves.

Ideas that support are the ones with acts attached to them and not as gospel but as effects of the original concept that of Liberty displayed, governments restricted to very small limited terms as to not expand themselves.

I don’t know about you but the actions of the 10 amendment center have been some of the most impacting I have seen to date to reach this very concept in the constitution, liberty with instructions to suspend the overpowering authorizing themselves to do what ever they feel like. To suspend these acts is in awesome support of the entire concept and thus needs no correction and all the support we can give it.

Bob Greenslade
Bob Greenslade

@WilliamSchooler@Bob Greenslade

The 10th Amendment is secondary, not primary. When I spoke to some Tea Party groups most of the people in attendance thought the 10th Amendment established the principle of not granted is reserved. This is not the case. In my opinion, it needs to be emphasized more in any 10th Amendment discussion because the principle exists independent of the Amendment. That was the point.

In early October of 1787, James Wilson, a Federalist from Pennsylvania, during a speech at Independence Hall, explained the proposed constitution and answered some of the criticisms being leveled against it. In his speech, Wilson succinctly explained the principle of powers not granted are reserved and stated why a bill of rights had been omitted from the Constitution, as originally written:

“It will be proper...to mark the leading discrimination between the State constitutions and the Constitution of the United States. When the people established the powers of legislation under their separate governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve...if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdiction is efficient and complete. But in delegating federal powers, another criterion was necessarily introduced, and the congressional power is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union. Hence, it is evident, that in the former case everything that is not reserved is given; but in the latter the reverse of the proposition prevails, and everything that is not given is reserved.

This distinction being recognized, will furnish an answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights a defect in the proposed constitution; for it would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the act that has brought the body into existence. For instance, the liberty of the press,...what control can proceed from the Federal government to shackle or destroy that sacred palladium of national freedom?...the proposed system possesses no influence whatever upon the press, and it would have been merely nugatory to have introduced a formal declaration upon the subject—nay, that very declaration might have been construed to imply that some degree of power was given, since we undertook to define its extent.”

WilliamSchooler
WilliamSchooler

@Bob Greenslade

I do get what are you are saying Bob, but from experience and from viewing what is in the constitution and what has been changed in the constitution and what is interpreted in the constitution I think much of this can be simplified. In fact if we we took all the perfect words there were and put them on this paper would make no difference to the ones intent on corrupting it because they don’t even understand the basic understanding of its use and we call these folks educated.

I think we get way too intrenched in words and symbols as the only great concepts of all time and I disagree. After all the only good concepts are the ones backed by activities.

In fact I see a whole white house full of bumbling idiots that pronounce fancy words but cannot show acts of supporting Liberty, a concept also generated long ago but highly miss understood by most today and definitely not acted on by many, well except the 10th Amendment center.

Even many of these Federalist were great and pronouncing a proper verb to define themselves as superior but even they miss used the concept when acted on.

As many of you have worked hard to gather all these words as defining this concept show me which word carries the impact without the support of some act?

I know many wish to show intelligence by how many words they all know regardless of how many around don't, but when it comes to understanding and the actions of is usually done not by those on pretty stages deciphering code but rather by those on the ground showing what is not working or what is working well and then fit the language around the performance and not the opposite. Or I assure you we would in no way arrive at this location in time. The act of defiance actually becomes more pronounced than the special wordings most of them don't know anyway or they could figure out a simple concept and act on it.

When we stop making words the all mighty statement of all time will we gather real confidence in our actions, until then there are far too many blowing smoke which only adds up to smoke. This isn’t meant to be disrespectful either, I am testing this all over because words and symbols only transfer ideas supposedly but not in all cases has this been full proof at all.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] in advocating the Tenth Amendment and what led to you foundingRead the rest of this article at: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/02/10/states-to-dc-back-off/ Click "Home" to find this article in English. Clic "Inicio" para encontrar este artículo en [...]