Nullification in North Dakota? That’s just what could be coming if Governor Jack Dalrymple signs Senate Bill 2309 (SB2309). This week, the bill passed the senate by a vote of 32-15 and the house by a vote of 69-24.

The bill, just one page of legislative language, states:

1. The legislative assembly declares that the federal laws known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [Pub. L. 111 - 148] and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 [Pub. L. 111 - 152] likely are not authorized by the United States Constitution and may violate its true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers.

2. The legislative assembly shall consider enacting any measure necessary to prevent the enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 within this state.

3. No provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 may interfere with an individual’s choice of a medical or insurance provider except as otherwise provided by the laws of this state.

This is a modification of the Tenth Amendment Center’s Federal Health Care Nullification Act – introduced in more than ten states this legislative session. Click here to track progress.

NULLIFIED!

Nullification – any act or series of acts which results in a particular federal law being rendered null and void, or unenforceable, within a state, is what Thomas Jefferson referred to as “the rightful remedy” to unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

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.

Interposition is explicitly stated in SB2309 through its requirement that the legislature to consider measures preventing the Affordable Care Act from being enforced within the state.

SUPREMACY

Opponents, however, claim that the law is “meaningless because state law can’t override federal law.” But, constitutionally-speaking, such a statement is dubious, at best.

All the founders agreed that the federal government would only be able to exercise those powers delegated to it in the constitution. It was clearly represented to the Constitution’s ratifiers that laws made outside those powers were not really laws at all – they were usurpations.

And, more importantly, such a statement is a direct reference to Article VI, the “supremacy clause” of the constitution. But, claiming that state laws cannot override federal law as a blanket statement is flat out wrong. Here’s the full text of the clause:

This 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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

The key points:

1. For a federal law to be supreme, it must be made in pursuance of a power delegated to the federal government in the constitution. If not, it’s no law at all, and state law is supreme.

2. There is no number two, it’s that straightforward.

THE MOVEMENT

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

Seven states have passed Health Care Freedom Acts to block health care mandates from being enforced. Eight states have passed Firearms Freedom Acts. 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. Massive state resistance to the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law virtually null and void. And, five states, led by Texas HB1938, are now considering measures to nullify TSA violations of the Constitution through bans on groping or bans on body scanners altogether.

While some advocates concede that a federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution. No court battle has been waged, no federal law has been repealed. Yet, the 2005 Act sits virtually null and void due to state-level resistance.

Some say that each successful rejection of federal acts will only embolden others to try the same – resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.

“If you don’t like it here, move to Cuba!”

“Why don’t you go spout your mouth off in Iraq with your buddy Saddam, you terrorist!”

Those were common emails for me to receive while George W. Bush was president. Opposing Bush policies like the Patriot Act, Real ID, and just about everything else back then didn’t win too many conservative friends for the Tenth Amendment Center, of which I am executive director.

These days, taking a stand for the Constitution – every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses – doesn’t win us too many friends from the left. When writing about our Nullify Now! event in Manchester on March 19th (http://www.nullifynow.com/newhampshire), a local “blue” blogger proclaimed:

“There ought to be a price paid for this sort of misbehavior”

Montana’s Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer recently told the AP that state nullification bills were “unamerican.”

Nullification – any act or acts which result in a particular federal law being rendered null and void, or unenforceable, in your state – really seems to get people’s blood boiling. On this issue, though, I believe both sides of the political aisle have been guilty of being little more than partisan hacks. They support the idea when “the other side” is in power, and viciously attack it when their team is in charge.

In my home state of California, medical marijuana has been “legal” for nearly 15 years now. When the idea was first proposed, it was attacked as nearly treasonous, mostly by those on the right. “You can’t just pick and choose what federal laws to obey” and “the supremacy clause pretty much settles the question” were the most common attacks on those who believed that the federal government shouldn’t have any say in whether people here could grow and consume a plant as they saw fit.

In 2007, when Governor John Lynch signed House Bill 685 refusing compliance with the Real ID Act, New Hampshire was participating in a nationwide nullification movement championed by the ACLU. The bill stated, in part:

“The general court finds that the public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in any driver’s license program pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005 or in any national identification card system that may follow therefrom.”

Didn’t hear too much opposition from the left on either of those issues, did ya? Neither did I.

Today, there are fifteen states actively defying Congress and the Supreme Court on marijuana. And, twenty-five states have joined the fray by refusing to comply with Real ID. The result? Through these state-level efforts, the Feds are being pushed back. Successfully.

The lesson? Nullification works.

These days, the big noise isn’t really about weed or ID cards – it’s pretty much accepted that states reject these things. But, after learning of the success that the left has had in recent years advancing their causes on a state level, many on the right are working to do the same.

In New Hampshire and other states around the country, legislatures are considering bills that will have the practical effect of nullifying federal laws on health care, guns, marijuana and even TSA body scanners.

The beauty of it all rests in the system that the Founders gave us in the Constitution. What’s right for New Hampshire might not be right for California, and vice-versa. The bottom line? Our federal system is the only one that allows a huge range of political and economic viewpoints to live under a big defense umbrella in peace.

Have the people of New Hampshire ever violated federal law to the point that it was unenforceable? I don’t know if the people here really live up to their motto, but it’s high time that they started.

And in the end, if medical marijuana or health care nullification takes hold, the People will have spoken loudly – nullification is alive and well…in New Hampshire.

State nullification, as Thomas Jefferson put it, “The rightful remedy.” Simply defined, any action taken by a state that renders an unconstitutional act null and void.

Over the last several months, the mainstream media suddenly sat up and took notice, primarily due to state efforts to nullify the federal health care act.

New from the TAC Store

But long before the uproar over Obamacare, states were already exercising their sovereign right and duty to defy unconstitutional federal acts.  And while the mainstream media and political pundits may not recognize it as nullification per se, the movement to legalize medicinal marijuana across the nation serves as the most powerful and successful example of state nullification to date.

Currently, 15 states and Washington D.C. have laws on the books making the possession and use of cannabis for qualified medical conditions legal.

The effectiveness and dangers of using marijuana remain a matter of debate. But a 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine did find that cannabis helped some people deal with certain illnesses.

“The IOM report, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, released in March 1999, found that marijuana’s active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea and vomiting, AIDS-related loss of appetite, and other symptoms and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials. The therapeutic effects of smoked marijuana are typically modest, and in most cases there are more effective medicines. But a subpopulation of patients do not respond well to other medications and have no effective alternative to smoking marijuana.”

But according to federal law, Americans cannot grow or possesses marijuana, even for medicinal use. Even if their doctor prescribes it. Even if the state says it’s OK.  And the Supreme Court agreed, ruling in Gonzales v. Raich that state-level medical marijuana laws were, in essence, illegal.

“…the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.”

But that didn’t stop California. Or Colorado. Or even Michigan. These states, along with 12 others, stood their ground and passed laws allowing medicinal use of marijuana within their borders. The lawmakers and citizens of those states deemed it beneficial to allow the use of cannabis for medical purposes and to this day, continue the practice, in direct defiance of federal “law.”

“After the supremes told the country that such laws were a big no-no, how many were repealed? Zero,” Tenth Amendment Center executive Michael Boldin said.

In fact, the movement continues to grow. Since the beginning of the year, 19 states have introduced legislation to legalize cannabis for medicinal use, including some traditionally socially conservative states such as Tennessee, Florida and West Virginia. And a few states, including Texas, Illinois and Maryland have pending legislation that would take it a step further, completely decriminalizing marijuana possession in small amounts.

What’s the fed to do?

Apparently, nothing.

And that’s the beauty of nullification. When enough states get together and defy unconstitutional federal overreach the fed ultimately has little choice but to back down. This is exactly what James Madison envisioned – a state check on federal power.

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

The movement to legalize marijuana for medicinal use at the state level represents the republican system at its best. The citizens of each state decide for themselves, through their elected representatives, if they want medicinal marijuana, and if so, how to best implement their wishes based on the circumstances, beliefs, values and political system in that particular state.

Instead of a one-size-fits all dictate passed down from Washington D.C., each state experiments and finds its own solutions. It’s difficult to understand how anybody could oppose this concept.

The media may continue to decry nullification as a dusty relic used to subjugate slaves, but the growing resistance to federal marijuana laws proves nullification a viable and effective option.

Or, as Jefferson said, “The rightful remedy.”

Originally published in the Los Angeles Daily News on 02-15-11

Nullification. The word evokes images of white-haired men with tri-fold hats, holding up signs about the “evils” of Obamacare and socialism.

States around the country are considering laws to reject federal laws on health care, guns, Environmental Protection Agency regulations and more. The pundits scream “racism,” the legal experts cite the “supremacy clause,” and the entire country – left to right – just might be missing the point.

As executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, the organization which created the “Health Care Nullification Act” introduced in more than 10 states, I see many people who fit this stereotypical “tenther” image, too.

Whenever I speak at “Nullify Now!” events around the country, the crowd is predominantly these folks. While a few progressives occasionally join the protesters, one doesn’t find too many 20-somethings with Che T-shirts attending such events.

While the rhetoric coming from many on the right these days includes words like “nullification,” and “state sovereignty,” it has been the left, not the right, which has been successful in putting these ideas into practice. And, California has been at the forefront since the beginning.

When Californians voted to approve Proposition 215 to allow medical marijuana, the word “nullification” was not part of the argument, but it most certainly was the result. Opponents often cited the Constitution’s “supremacy clause,” saying the state had no authority to violate federal marijuana laws. But, Californians voted to violate those laws by the millions. And, when the Supreme Court ruled in the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich case that state-level medical marijuana laws were, in essence, illegal, dispensaries around the state didn’t start closing shop.

In fact, by 2005, there were nine other states that had joined California in passing medical marijuana laws. After the supremes told the country that such laws were a big no-no, how many were repealed? Zero. And since then, another five states – most recently, Arizona – have joined up.

Think about that. There are now 15 states actively defying Congress and the Supreme Court – and they’re getting away with it. This, more than anything else, is what nullification is: any action which results in federal law(s) being rendered nearly unenforceable.

Green Door Hydro, Los Angeles

When I took a bike ride around my neighborhood in downtown L.A. the other day, I didn’t find a single Drug Enforcement Agent shutting down an arts district grow shop. A recent trip to Venice confirmed my hunch that there are plenty of businesses and individuals openly nullifying federal laws with dispensaries galore. A visit to the Bay Area last fall verified the same.

But yet, how often does one hear a legal scholar or a political pundit spending time and energy on how these pot-dealers and pot-smokers are bringing chaos to America?

How often do you hear that this active nullification of federal drug laws is done by people who hate President Obama for being black? I’ll assume you’ve that heard just about as much as I have – never.

Medical marijuana isn’t the only issue where Californians have taken a lead in standing up to the feds. In 2006, when the Congressional Research Service released a report on “sanctuary cities” around the country, California was at the head of the pack, with more major cities on the list than any other state in the country.

Oddly enough, I haven’t heard about Washington, D.C., threatening to withhold highway funds. The national guard hasn’t been sent in to force these cities to comply with federal immigration laws. But yet, that’s what some claim will happen if health care nullification laws are passed today.

I doubt it. If today’s nullification proposals follow in the path of the left’s nullification of federal drug and immigration laws, it’s quite possible we’ll see the same kind of results. The feds backing off.

The real question, of course, is this – will gay marriage advocates in Maine, health care nullification advocates in Idaho, gun rights activists in Oklahoma, and marijuana advocates in California ever realize that they’re actually on the same side?

They likely don’t agree on specific issues, but they agree with their actions; the most difficult and divisive issues need to be dealt with close to home, in their states. Either way, it’s good to be in California, where nullification is alive and well.

Most articles that seek to demonize the Tenth Amendment movement are so rife with logical and intellectual fallacies that even responding to them is a waste of time. However, in the case of Dan Casey, blogger for the Roanoke Times, an exception must be made.

For starters, Casey is writing in my (and Thomas Jefferson’s) home state of Virginia, and his piece, “The Whole Tenth Amendment Business is Dumb and Crazy” actually links to the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center, which I helped to found.

But, more importantly, in his article, Casey attempts to smear the brilliant men who wrote the U.S. Constitution by claiming the document doesn’t mean what they explicitly said it meant.

As James Madison might have said, there is a host of proofs that Dan Casey is dead wrong.

Like so many others before him, Casey leads his attack with a flaccid attempt to discredit the “Tenthers” (as he pejoratively calls them) by linking constitutionalism with support for slavery.

Of course, this completely obscures actions by Tenthers of an earlier era, who used the 10th Amendment as the prime justification for the “States Rights” argument that itself was a smokescreen for the real cause of the Civil War — the South’s insistence on preserving slavery.

Behold straw man number one: The Tenth Amendment is code for racism. Casey is either ignorant of the fact that many Northern states used the Tenth Amendment as a justification for undermining slavery long before 1861, through their refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts, or he has chosen to ignore that inconvenient part of history. 

Either way, it doesn’t matter. Historical accuracy is not Casey’s goal. He merely intends to color his readers’ perception of Tenthers by linking them, however spuriously, with Southern slaveholders. To acknowledge the truth about the history of states’ rights in the North might disrupt his narrative of unquestioning obsequiousness to centralized power.

Casey continues:

But apart from aligning themselves with slaveholders, there’s another more fundamental flaw in the whole modern Tenther argument. In a nutshell, it’s this: Their interpretation is based on a single sentence in the Constitution, rather than on the document as a whole.

In fact, the larger document directly contradicts the Tenthers’ argument.  That’s right — words the founding fathers quite deliberately wrote into the Constitution clearly and effectively rebut the Tenthers’ faulty reasoning.

It’s hard to imagine where Casey got this impression, considering that James Madison himself described the document he helped to write by saying

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.

Thomas Jefferson also knew the Tenth Amendment was more than just “a single sentence.” He called it the Constitution’s foundation: 

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.

It really cannot be any clearer than that. The self-serving opinions of Dan Casey and myriad federal judges notwithstanding, if the people and the states didn’t explicitly surrender a power in the Constitution, then they still retain it. Whether or not they choose to exercise it is another story.

But if federal power is limited to what is enumerated in the Constitution, Casey asks, why do we need a Bill of Rights at all?

The problem for the Tenthers here is that the First Amendment has nothing to do with what Congress can do. It’s all about what Congress can’t do.

And this is where the Tenthers’ entire argument falls apart. Because under Tenther-logic, unless the Constitution permitted the feds to establish religion, or abridge freedom of speech and so on, then the feds would automatically be prohibited from doing it.

Obviously, the founding fathers themselves did not believe that, or they never would have felt the need to write the First Amendment in the first place.

Here Casey has a point, although not the one he thinks. He is right, the feds are automatically prohibited from doing any of the things he lists, just as they are prohibited from requiring every American to buy health insurance, based on the fact that those powers are not delegated under Article 1 Section 8.  

But, more importantly, many of the founders themselves argued against the Bill of Rights for the same reason as Casey: It should not be necessary. 

Alexander Hamilton said

…bills of rights… are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. …For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? 

If there is any argument to be made against the Tenth Amendment, it is Hamilton, not Casey, who has made it.

The Bill of Rights should never have been needed. Every one of the first 10 Amendments is essentially legally redundant based on the text of the Constitution itself.

But, over time, activist judges and complicit politicians have turned the entire document on its head, until the only rights left to the people are those explicitly granted, while the only powers not yet claimed by government are those explicitly prohibited.

Yet Casey calls Tenthers, who only want the Constitution’s clear language enforced, ”intellectual boobs who can’t be bothered to think for themselves.” Apparently, thinking for oneself means ignoring the purpose of our founding documents, and gratefully acquiescing to federal tyranny.

Those of us who demand liberty are feared and ridiculed by weak minded men like Dan Casey who consider themselves intelligent, but are really nothing more than errand boys for the State.

As Samuel Adams once said

If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Not surprisingly (I know, as an Arizonan, my pride is showing), Arizona is now one of four states this year to propose an Intrastate Commerce Act. Please note: that’s intrastate, not interstate!

The bill, which is based on model legislation written by the Tenth Amendment Center, has a name that sounds fairly innocuous, but do not be fooled! In fact, I predict that SB 1178 will startle our overlords in Washington, DC and deeply offend them in much the same way that Arizona’s immigration act, SB 1070 did.

The bill’s primary sponsors are Sen. Sylvia Allen, Sen. Linda Gray, Sen. Gail Griffin, Sen. Brenda Barton, and Sen. Judy Burges. Co-Sponsors include Sen. Frank Antenori, Sen. Andy Biggs, Sen. Al Melvin, Sen. Don Shooter and Sen. Chester Crandell.

If passed by the Arizona State Legislature and signed by the governor, SB 1178 will amend the Arizona Revised Statutes in order to provide that all goods grown, manufactured or made in Arizona and all services performed in Arizona, when such goods or services are sold, maintained, or retained in Arizona, shall not be subject to the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce.

Wow! Now if that were not offensive enough to Washington politicians and bureaucrats, the bill goes even further and would impose the following penalties:

A. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of an entity 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 chapter is guilty of a class 6 felony, except that any fine imposed shall not exceed two thousand dollars.

B. Any public officer or employee of this state who enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government in violation of this chapter is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, except that any fine imposed shall not exceed five hundred dollars.

Can anyone deny that this is truly nullification legislation with teeth?

But setting aside the penalties for a moment, please allow me to unpack the concepts contained in the first part of the bill. I also hope you won’t mind if I quickly cover some history while I’m at it.

If you have been paying attention to the federal court battles concerning what has come to be known as “Obamacare”, you’ll know that Roger Vinson, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, recently declared the Obama administration’s health care overhaul to be unconstitutional. If you’ve really done your homework, you might even understand why he declared “Obamacare” to be unconstitutional. But if not, here’s how Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center explains it:

“According to Vinson – and just about everyone else in the federal judiciary – the federal government actually does have the authority to control, reform, and regulate the health care industry. They’re just going about it wrong,” Michael Boldin, said.

Judge Vinson’s conclusion was, as he said,  based, “..on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition.” In other words, even though Judge Vinson may have given the people of the several states a favorable ruling this time, he’s still an unapologetic judicial supremacist who makes it clear that we are a de facto nation ruled by case law rather than a federal republic governed by the Constitution, according to its original, fixed and knowable meaning.

Congressional Commerce Clause Abuse (CCCA)

In his article Commerce Clause Abuse, Dr. Walter E. Williams, who serves on the faculty of George Mason University, wrote:“The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3 gives Congress authority ‘To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes’..the original purpose of the Commerce Clause was primarily a means to eliminate trade barriers among the states. They didn’t intend for the Commerce Clause to govern so much of our lives.”

What Dr. Williams points out here is simply what James Madison explained a long time ago: That the commerce clause was intended to make trade “regular” between the states, primarily to prevent interstate tariff wars. In fact, the man who is often called The Father of the Constitution wrote:

“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

No honest student of American history can conclude that a significant number of either the framers or ratifiers of the Constitution ever envisioned Congress would have plenary authority to regulate entire industries, such as the health care industry, or any form of commerce conducted entirely within an individual state’s boundaries.

Rather, as Michael Boldin asserts, “The feds are authorized to make commerce in health care across state lines, ‘regular’ – that’s for sure. But this power is far less than anything that’s been proposed by either political party in….well, probably about forever.”

What do do?

If you think that the feds are going to read Tom Wood’s new book and suddenly decide to limit their own power, or that all we need to do is elect the right people to federal office, or to obtain a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court, or that checks and balances between the three branches of the federal government will eventually deter acts of federal usurpation, I have some beach front property in Yuma, AZ that you might be interested in. You’ll have to wait a little while for California to fall into the sea, of course.

But on the other hand, if you are willing to be just a little bit more realistic, you can instead choose to recognize that although we’ve heard the promises of federal politicians before, and we know that even those who sincerely may have started out intending to roll back unconstitutional federal power (Ronald Reagan comes to my mind), the fact is that the strategy of regime change for Washington, DC has failed and will continue to fail for the foreseeable future. Pursuing the strategy of regime change for DC is like putting a band aid on a spurting arterial wound. We’re quickly running out of time and what the states need to adopt with regard to Washington, DC is a policy of containment that is more like a tourniquet!

We all know that year after year, regardless of which party dominates the so called “federal” government, its size, expense and intrusiveness continues to grow, unchecked. So finally, legislators in states like Arizona, Virginia and New Hampshire have decided to take matters into their own hands and pursue their own policy of containment. Sanity at last!

The number of states that have decided to stand up and resist the tyranny of our so called “federal” government, in order to arrest the steady consolidation of power in fewer and fewer hands is somewhat surprising, yet very inspiring. They have decided, with the support of average citizens like you, to reclaim the American Revolution by using the rightful remedy that the author of the Declaration of Independence recommended back in 1798. It’s called nullification.

I was thrilled to see J.B. Williams report in NewsWithViews.com that the State of Montana has a broad-based State nullification bill currently proposed in its legislature. Derek Skees (R-Whitefish) is the State legislator who has introduced this much-needed legislation.

See the story here

The fact is, Skees’ State Nullification bill is only one of several outstanding freedom-first bills that is currently before the Montana legislature. I urge readers to go to PolyMontana.com to look at the many other fine pieces of pro-freedom legislation pending in the Montana State legislature:

http://polymontana.com/legislators/freedom-bills/

Unfortunately, one of those very fine bills has already been defeated: the “Sheriffs First” bill sponsored by Senator Greg Hinkle (R-Thompson Falls). This bill is long overdue and absolutely necessary to prevent federal usurpation of State and local law enforcement. That the Montana legislature failed to pass this bill indicates just how necessary it is to elect State legislators who truly understand constitutional government. I urge readers to read the following defense of the Sheriffs First law, written by my son, Constitutional Attorney Tim Baldwin:

http://tinyurl.com/4aclefs

Look through the list of the other freedom bills presently before the Montana State legislature and one will instantly recognize the potential for this State to stand at the “tip of the spear” in the reclamation and restoration of State sovereignty, freedom, and independence. (Plus, it reinforces why my family and I made the life-changing decision to move to this beautiful and wonderful State.)

For example, there is a bill to nullify federal health care laws; a bill to eliminate the misapplication of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution; a bill to nullify the Endangered Species Act; a bill to authorize permit-less Concealed Carry; a bill to transfer management of certain federal lands; a bill to provide the State eminent domain authority for federal lands; and, of course, the Sheriffs First act, which would have required the Sheriff’s authorization for federal law enforcement agencies to conduct arrests, searches, and seizures.

I would dare say: if you are a freedom-minded individual, goose bumps ran up your spine just from reading the above summary. I got goose bumps simply writing about it. Can one imagine the kind of freedom that would be unleashed in this great State should even a handful of these bills actually become law? And think of the numbers of other State legislatures that would quickly follow suit (especially here in the West) should any State legislature pass and a State governor sign these kinds of freedom protections into law!

This is why I keep insisting that, if freedom has a chance to survive in these United States, the American people must get their eyes off of Washington, D.C., and start focusing on their individual states. The authority and power to properly defend liberty has always rested with the states. I’m not saying we should not be concerned about who our US representatives and senators are–or who is elected President. I am saying, however, that freedom will never be restored from inside the Beltway. It is State independence, resolve, and nullification that will ultimately preserve and protect our liberties. And, as the creators of the US Constitution acknowledged, State nullification is absolutely requisite to freedom’s survival.

And, fortunately, Montana is not the only State with freedom-loving men and women in its legislature. I am hearing of lawmakers in states such as Oklahoma and Virginia (and several others) who are introducing similar freedom bills in their respective State legislatures. The question is, as always, will the people of these states get behind their brave legislators and help them get these freedom bills passed? If they are preoccupied with watching the major television network news channels (that focus almost entirely on national and international politics), they will not even know that these freedom bills are being proposed (most local media ignore them, too), and, therefore, will be totally inactive and ineffective in helping to restore the freedoms they claim to love.

I repeat: if freedom is to have a new birth in America, we must stop focusing on Washington, D.C., and start focusing on our individual states! I cannot overstate it: liberty will be won or lost at the State level!

*******

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Back in 2007, Maine generated national headlines when it took a step that then was not known to our mainstream political world: nullification. The Legislature took steps to ensure an unconstitutional bill that would drop a serious financial burden on the State would not be enforced within its territory. Although Governor John Baldacci refused to take the stand for Maine when he ultimately vetoed the nullification legislation, Maine still sent a message to Washington D.C. But next to D.C., Maine also sent a message to the entire country: the Federal Government is out of control.

Fast forward to 2010, when the midterm elections came and the political landscape in Maine underwent a major shift, which would change at least the immediate future greatly. Republicans control the Legislature and the Blaine House for the first time in decades, but not all are your typical Republicans. Some are Tea Party Republicans, others are more independently-minded libertarian Republicans, and both seem to have their share of Tenth Amendment supporters. With this new landscape, Maine has taken quite the step forward.

Now we look at 2011, January 7th, the cloture deadline, has come and gone. Almost sixty pages worth of submitted bills are on record, most waiting for L.D. numbers and committee assignments. Among these are not one, not even just a few, but several Tenth Amendment-related bills.

Only one has an L.D. number at this point and that one is L.D. 58, the bill that would nullify the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act, introduced by Republican Representative Rich Cebra of Naples. For those who do not recall, or never were aware, Rep. Cebra has previously introduced a State Sovereignty Resolution which was put to rest fast back when the Democrats controlled the Legislature. In this session, he has done a lot to get the Tenth Amendment agenda advanced in the Legislature. He has also introduced legislation that would nullify federal firearm laws that affect guns manufactured and sold within State lines.

Republican Representative Mel Newendyke of Litchfield has introduced a bill similar to Rep. Cebra’s firearms bill, but this would also include ammunition in addition to firearms. In addition to this, he has also introduced a bill that would nullify federal laws in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Republican Representative Aaron Libby of Waterboro has introduced the Intrastate Commerce Act, which would nullify Federal laws that illegally affect anything manufactured and sold in Maine. He has also introduced his own Federal Healthcare nullification bill, as well as a Defend The Guard Act, which would return control of the National Guard to the Governor, as provided for by the Constitution.

Democrat Representative Walter Kumiega of Deer Isle has introduced a Food Freedom Act, similar to the one that was introduced in Wyoming.

Independent Representative Ben Chipman of Portland has also brought Maine’s original nullification issue back to the table. As the Maine Legislature was the first among many to push through nullification of Real ID, it fell in Maine as then-Governor John Baldacci vetoed the legislation. Rep. Chipman’s new bill would repeal the Real ID law in Maine. The political climate has changed since 2007, the Legislature has shifted control from the Democrats to the Republicans, as well as the current Governor now being Republican as opposed to Democratic. But if what has been submitted is any indication, then the 125th Maine Legislature is very receptive to the idea of States’ Rights under the Tenth Amendment. Governor LePage has indicated previously, while still a candidate, that he is supportive of the idea and has been supportive of Attorney General Bill Schneider’s stand for the Tenth Amendment, by becoming involved with the lawsuit against the Federal Government over the Federal Healthcare laws. The Real ID repeal now stands a better chance at going through fully.

Also, a few names that shouldn’t be forgotten are those willing to take on supporting the Tenth Amendment as cosponsors. L.D. 58, the bill that would nullify the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act, has several cosponsors. Among these cosponsors are Senator Ron Collins (R-York), Representatives Bruce Bickford (R-Auburn), Kathleen Chase (R-Wells), Phillip Curtis (R-Madison), Stacey Fitts (R-Pittsfield), Lance Harvell (R-Farmington), Beth O’Connor (R-Berwick), Heather Sirocki (R-Scarborough), and Tom Winsor (R-Norway).

As noted before however, the concept of States’ Rights is not a partisan issue. The mainstream media and elements of both parties have attempted to pass off nullification as a fringe idea, one that is now being used by bitter conservatives bent on crippling President Barack Obama in a political war. But with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents embracing the idea of States’ Rights, this claim is nullified, just like the Federal Government’s unconstitutional overreaching soon will be.

Chris Dixon [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Maine Tenth Amendment Center. He is also a writer for Maine Web News.

Copyright © 2011 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The W.V. Coal Miner

Over the last couple of months, we’ve seen increased media attention focused on state efforts opposing the federal health care act passed last year. Along with state legal challenges and health care freedom legislation focused on the insurance mandates, eight states recently proposed bills declaring the entire health care act null and void, and imposing criminal penalties on any agent enforcing the act within their state borders.

But health care does not stand alone as an issue drawing the ire of state lawmakers. Many state legislators have grown increasingly frustrated with overreaching federal activity into areas rightly reserved to the states by agencies such as the EPA and FDA.

West Virginia Assembly Delegate Gary Howell (R-Keyser) recently introduced legislation into the House of Delegates  “establishing that the environmental regulation of coal and certain coal products mined and used within the state are exclusively regulated by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.”

H.B. 2554 finds its basis in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the West Virginia state constitution.

“The regulation of intrastate commerce, including the natural environment as affected by intrastate business, is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and is specifically retained by the State of West Virginia according to Section 2, Article I of the West Virginia Constitution.”

The bill enjoys bipartisan support with three Democrats signing on as co-sponsors.

Howell said a recent EPA decision to pull a permit and shut down Spruce 1 mine shocked many state lawmakers and increased the possibility of passing the legislation.

“The odds jumped as West Virginia legislators are looking hard to fire back,” Howell said.

Spruce 1, located in Morgan County, was the largest surface mine permitted in Appalachia. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued the permit in 2007 after a 10 year approval process, which included an assessment indicating the mine met clean water standards. But on Jan. 13, the EPA vetoed the permit and shut down the mine.

“EPA is taking this action under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act because the discharges associated with the DA Permit in Pigeonroost Branch, Oldhouse Branch and their tributaries will have unacceptable adverse effects on wildlife,” reads the agency’s final determination. “In addition, the impacts downstream due to the destruction of those streams will result in unacceptable adverse impacts to wildlife and also warrant EPA’s action under Section 404(c).”

Arch subsidiary Mingo Logan Coal Co. operates the mine. The company stands to lose a $250 million investment and officials estimate it will cost more than 200 high paying jobs.

“To give the EPA that much authority and the willingness to use it means that investors are going to be very cautious about investing in supplying energy when the federal government can nullify those investments and send your workforce home simply because they, on second thought or hindsight, decide that’s what they want to do,” Bill Bledsoe, executive director of the Norton-based Virginia Mining Association, said. “This EPA veto power doesn’t extend only to coal; it extends to anything. It means EPA can come in and shut any operation down without due process.”

Howell said the shutdown of a single mine represents just the tip of an iceberg, with federal regulation  hobbling West Virginia’s coal industry and hitting the state hard in the pocketbook.

“It is costing thousands of jobs and millions in reduced taxes to the state,” he said.

Howell said the bill will face its biggest hurdle in the judiciary committee. He fears committee members may kill the bill, thinking it unconstitutional. But Howell has already considered that possibility.

“Constitutional lawyers from the Cato Institute and the Goldwater Institute have both looked at the bill and say it passes Constitutional muster,” Howell said.

Federal judges would likely disagree. Courts have stretched the commerce clause far beyond its intended meaning, ruling that Congress can regulate virtually anything. But the framers intended the commerce clause to simply regulate trade between states, and never envisioned federal power extending inside state borders or to areas such as mining. James Madison wrote:

“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

(For an in depth look at the original understanding of commerce click here.)

Howell said that his concerns run even deeper than protecting the Mountaineer State’s most important industry. It’s a matter of liberty.

“I’m the direct decedent of one of George Washington’s soldiers. For more than 230 years my family has defended the Constitution by force of arms in the service of our nation,” he said. “I have chosen to serve our nation as an elected official. I’m tired of big government ignoring the Constitution and damaging my state and my nation. I’m fighting back to provide jobs and economic stability to West Virginia by using the very tool the founders gave us as state legislators, the 10th Amendment.”

Please help the Tenth Amendment Center reach it’s Q1 and Q2 fundraising goal – 65% there already!  Visit this link to invest in freedom and the constitution right now!
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/donate/

*******

When Washington D.C. violates the constitution – as it does every single day – the essential question is – “what do we do about it?”

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.

But there’s another way – one that people like Thomas Jefferson advised – “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

Since 2006, the Tenth Amendment Center has been the tip of the spear advancing this message – that when states pass laws to reject and nullify unconstitutional federal “laws” regulations and mandates – it’s not rebellion…it’s duty.

Already, 8 states have passed firearms freedom acts to reject some federal gun laws, 15 states – most recently, Arizona – are actively defying D.C. on cannabis laws, 7 states have passed health care freedom acts to reject health care mandates, and in 2011 – already 6 states – Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming – have introduced the TAC’s model legislation – the federal health care nullification act – to reject not just mandates, the entire national health care bill – every single word of it.

And right now, we need your help to keep this activism and this movement growing.  We’re in the middle of our 2011 q1 and q2 fundraising drive.  Our goal?  For efforts this big – pretty modest – we need just $10,000 to keep the Tenth Amendment Center operational for the next 6 months.  why?  because we’re run almost solely by the dedicated work of volunteers – helping us run our national organization and more than 2 dozen state and local chapters too.

In just our first week alone, we already hit 65% of our goal, and I’m pretty blown away by the quick success.  A huge thanks goes out to the nearly 150 people that have joined us already!   But we’ve still got a little way to go.  Only a few thousand more… and whether you’re donating $3 or $3000, every penny is going to go towards standing up for the constitution – every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.

Won’t you please join us in this effort today?  Please dig deep and help us lead this movement.  Help us reach our goal right now – visit tenthamendmentcenter.com/donate to contribute today

We’re extremely grateful for your support…..thank you.