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

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

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

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

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

Signed:

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

Many of us, after years of indoctrination at our government schools, were left with a sense that there is a great government force working hard every day to protect us and look after our best interest. We were told that government standards keep us safe from disease, that government highway regulations keep us safe from car accidents, that federal agencies make sure that the food we eat will be healthy.

The result of all of this? Americans everywhere drive more carelessly, do not research what they put on their plate and take medications that leave them sicker, rather than healthier.

For government officials, free from the scrutiny of the free market and any sort of competition, they typically have one primary goal once they have obtained their coveted position of power- to retain that power and gain even more. This is a simple fact of human nature, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

A great example is the Food and Drug Administration, which after obtaining the confidence of the republic’s masses has been responsible for regular introduction of medications that maim and even kill those who trust it’s oversight. This is hardly surprising when one considers that many FDA regulators were installed after terms as drug company lobbyists. Likewise, Federal officials entrusted with America’s food supply have allowed the greatest food experiment in the history of mankind- the use of Genetically Modified crops.

The dangers of this veil of protection not only enables Americans to become ignorant, mindless sheep but also allows the growth of power, as recently seen with the Federal forays into finance and medical care.

Those who seek the protective hand of big brother pay a high price as they trust their quality of life to a largely self serving group of legislators. If the goal is a better quality of life, the solution is simple: more responsibility and less government involvement.

Bryce Shonka [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the California Tenth Amendment Center. He also serves as the Media and Grassroots Director for the National Tenth Amendment Center. He resides in Los Angeles, CA.

Friend of the Tenth Amendment Center, and executive director of the Liberty Restoration Project, Catherine Bleish, speaking on State Sovereignty at the St. Charles (MO) Tea Party in October, 2009.

Visit her website at http://donttreadoncat.com/

A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan have already introduced similar legislation, and potentially, 15 other states will do so in the 2010 legislative session.

But here’s something fundamentally important that NYT writer Monica Davey claims in her article:

…the Constitution’s supremacy clause ordinarily allows federal law to, in essence, trump a state law that conflicts with it…

A best, this is a highly-misleading statement.

There are two main points to make here:

1. The “supremacy clause” does not allow federal law to trump state law in all situations, or even “ordinarily” as Davey claims. It only does so when both laws are in pursuance of a power that has been delegated to the federal government by “We the People.” – in the Constitution.

2. We know that this is the case because Monica’s version of the supremacy clause was actually proposed by leading founders – and rejected. When the Constitution was being drafted, James Madison and others proposed what came to be known as the “Virginia Plan.” A major part of this plan was to give the congress a veto over state laws. It was defeated. That means, in plain English, the founders considered this idea, and said no. And Davey is irrefutably wrong in her claim.

So we know from this short lesson that the supremacy clause did not authorize the power that Davey is claiming. In reality, things are pretty much the other way around. The biggest Constitutional problems that actually exist in this country are those times when the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it by “We the People.” And that happens far more often than not.

Unfortunately, though, not enough people know this important history of the Virginia Plan, and this basic premise of the Constitution, so they’re easily swayed by patently false statements by people like Davey and the New York Times.

Thomas Woods in the third in a series of ten lectures, presented at “The Truth About American History: An Austro-Jeffersonian Perspective” seminar, hosted by the Mises Institute. Recorded 06/21/2005.

Part 1.  Part 2.

If the federal government were trying to do something within a state that was unconstitutional, the state government could say – you have no jurisdiction to do something illegal within our state.

Nullification has a long history in the American tradition, and as Napolitano points out, it was used in Massachusetts to resist the abhorrent federal fugitive slave act in the 19th century.

There’s a strong nullification movement growing in the states today.

Learn more about it here:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/

by Rob Natelson

Effectively defending American federalism requires us to remember that federalism was not created by the states – nor was it created for state benefit.

Federalism was fashioned by the American people – for the benefit of individuals and of the people as a whole. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, possibly the most eminent defender of the Tenth Amendment to sit on the modern Supreme Court, put it this way:

The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE

by Josh Eboch

Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, no single ideological camp could wield sufficient power to impose a set of beliefs on the entire country.

Which was exactly the point of our federalist system, and of the 10th Amendment. Beyond specific, enumerated federal powers, an infinite number of issues were intentionally left to the authority of the people through their state governments. And it is to the states that liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians must address all questions extending beyond the constitutional purview of federal authority.

Click Here to Read the Full Article