“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
- The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Like a muscle that atrophies when unused, the power of the U.S. Constitution also withers when its meaning is lost on the people.  And, sadly, for many people its meaning most certainly has been lost.

Today, our Federal government illegally conducts; a national take over of our health care, illegal search and seizure at our airports, a seemingly endless use of your tax dollars to prop up failing businesses, and much more.  If people were to view the Constitution properly, as an enumeration of powers delegated to the federal government, one would be hard-pressed to find a day go by without serious Constitutional violations.

However these illegal intrusions are not root of the problem facing our lives today but are instead only symptoms of a much greater sickness of “ignorance” that has infected the American people. The only cure for ignorance is education.

Enter Michael Boldin and the Tenth Amendment Center.

Or, as Chuck Norris put it in his Human Events and TownHall column last year:

“I would encourage you to go to the Tenth Amendment Center and learn more about your 10th Amendment rights”

Established in 2006, the Tenth Amendment Center has been leading the charge to re-educate the American public on the meaning and importance of decentralization as a path to liberty – which is just what the Tenth Amendment affirmed in the U.S. Constitution.

Cited regularly as a resource by media and grassroots sources from the left, right, and center – including Glenn Beck, the Associated Press, Lew Rockwell, Reuters, Campaign for Liberty, and many others – along with having twenty three thousand supporters via facebook, the Tenth Amendment Center is a trusted member of our freedom community.

With more than two dozen State and Local TAC chapters around the country, and many more to come in 2011, the Center also works with state legislatures and grassroots organizations alike to reinvigorate the people’s understanding and practice of the principles held within the Tenth Amendment, it being the greatest check and balance on Federal power that exists.

During the second half of 2010, I had the good fortune to meet and get to know Michael Boldin personally.  After seeing first hand his driven dedication, passion, talent and (perhaps most importantly) his results, I personally rank his efforts and initiatives, via the Tenth Amendment Center, as some of the most important in our movement.

That’s why today I’m writing you to ask for your help – help through your participation in a money bomb of support for this very important cause – our cause, liberty!

On January 10th and 11th, and in commemoration of Thomas Paine’s great work “Common Sense,” we’ll be holding a mass fundraising day to help support and nurture the work of the Tenth Amendment Center. You can pledge to participate directly at the moneybomb website at www.CommonSenseMoneyBomb.com or via the facebook event here.

As Ron Paul has reminded us on many occasions, while elections are important parts of our political process, it is the power of ideas that truly shape and set the foundations of nations. Now that the elections are over, let’s take some time to get back to the fundamentals, let’s bring back the Tenth Amendment!

And, most importantly, lets cure this nation of its ignorance and apathy until the Federal government is penned back into its box and properly muzzled as it should be.

Please take a moment to pledge now directly at the moneybomb website at www.CommonSenseMoneyBomb.com or via the facebook event here. I look forward to participating with you on January 10th and 11th.

Sincerely,

Trevor Lyman

Trevor Lyman [send him email] is a political activist and one of the originators of the Money Bomb concept that broke funraising records in Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign. Visit his websites, breakthematrix.com, trevorlyman.com

“We have it in our power to begin the world over again”

Tom Paine’s powerful words hold just as much meaning today as they did on January 10, 1776 when he first published Common Sense – what historians call “the most popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era.”

With a federal government that rarely follows the rules that govern it – the Constitution, that is – there’s a lot of work to do to “begin the world over again.” Our moment is now.

THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION

When the federal government violates the Constitution – what do we do about it? Do we lobby congress and ask federal politicians to limit federal power? Do we go to court and ask federal judges to limit federal power? Do we “vote the bums out” in the hopes that the new bums will give back all that power?

What do we do about it? That’s the question that more and more people are asking every day. Why? Because those three options are what we the people have been employing for nearly a century. In all that time, we the people have been marching and protesting. We the people have sued and voted bums out.

The result? I hate to be the bearer of bad news folks, but all these efforts have been a complete and utter failure. It doesn’t matter what political party is in power in Washington D.C. It doesn’t matter what individual occupies the White House either. Year in and year out, federal power grows and your liberty is reduced.

PARCHMENT

So what DO we do about it?

In Common Sense, Paine answered that question for us – “When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.”

While the ratification of the Constitution created a system of government to decentralize power and create fertile ground for liberty – if we’re relying on the federal government to police and limit itself, that power will always grow. In fact, other great founders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers, those powers would never be limited – regardless of elections, courts, separations of powers or any of the other vaunted parts of the American system.

As Paine warned us – “virtue is not hereditary.” So even if we were to have a perfect constitutionalist president. Or a Congress full of the same, there’s no guarantee that it would last, and sooner or later those that seek power for evil purposes would get in control. The history of the United States is all the proof we should ever need to understand this stark reality.

DUTY

The existence of the Constitution itself will never protect liberty. You need to. I need to. Our friends and family need to. It’s up to us.

Where does that leave us?

Well, it’s quite simple: We the People need to learn to exercise our rights whether they the government want us to or not!

ACTION FOR TODAY

Since 2006, the Tenth Amendment Center has been championing this message and consistently promoting liberty through decentralization. While the task may seem insurmountable at times – no matter how much the odds seem stacked against freedom, it’s essential to do what’s right. And for the Tenth Amendment Center, doing what’s right is pretty straightforward:

We demand adherence to the Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

But we need your help to continue these efforts. On January 10th, 2011, in commemoration of Thomas Paine’s historic work, we defend the philosophy held within his writings by holding a mass donation day in support of this revolutionary effort for the cause of liberty, The Tenth Amendment Center.

If you agree that an unconstitutional “law” is no law at all – stand up for the constitution and pledge to support the center in our work right now.

Only with your help can we being the world over again. So if you believe in the constitution and the message of the Tenth Amendment Center – the time to act is now. Not next year, not next month, and not next week. Today. Not tomorrow. Now.

Help us celebrate the anniversary of Common Sense. Help is what we need and help is what you can give us today. Click the banner below and pledge to support this movement now!

The following is based off a speech given at Nullify Now! in Orlando, FL on 10-10-10.
Watch the video here: Part 1, Part 2

We don’t need no stinkin’ permission to exercise our rights. We need to exercise our rights whether they the government want us to or not.

Ok, so let’s start out with the easy stuff, here… I’m a proud tenther. That means I believe that the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers that we the people delegated to it in the constitution – and nothing more.

The founders created a system, unique in history, where the most difficult and most divisive issues would be kept close to home in our states and our communities. And, there’s a good reason for such a system – it’s the only kind that can allow people of widely varying political, religious, and economic viewpoints living together in peace. I’m from California. In Florida, you likely don’t want California’s policies. We shouldn’t be required to have Florida’s. Maine should be different from Montana, Texas should be different from South Carolina, and so on. This is the system that best advances freedom.

Unfortunately, though, for a long long time, there’s been very little that the federal government does that actually IS authorized by the constitution.

QUESTION: WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?

- Do we lobby congress or march on DC and ask that federal politicians limit their own power?
- Do we sue them in court and ask federal judges to limit federal power?
- Do we vote the bums out – and hope that the new bums will reject their own power?

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers – that power would endlessly grow…regardless of elections, separation of powers, courts, or other vaunted parts of our system.

They were right. For over a century, we the people have been suing, and marching, and lobbying, and voting the bums out. But yet…year in and year out, government continues to grow and your liberty continues to diminish. And, it doesn’t matter who is the president, or what political party controls congress – the growth of power in the federal government never stops.

Power – the problem we face today is about power – and until we address the absolute fact that the federal government has too much power, and going to the federal government to fix problems caused by federal power – things will never change.

John Adams once gave us a warning that “liberty once lost, is lost forever.” He wasn’t necessarily saying that there’s no hope whatsoever. But instead, it was an important lesson. Whenever government tells us they need more power to deal with an “emergency” – and they always have them for both foreign and domestic issues – that same government will never voluntarily give that power back. They’ll never just decide that the newfound power is something they don’t want, and that liberty will never be regained without a long, difficult struggle by the people.

WHAT WOULD JEFFERSON DO?

How do we fix this mess? Well, I think I’m in pretty good company if i go with Thomas Jefferson’s advice that “whensoever” the federal government exercises “undelegated powers” … “a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

Reading this, you’ll notice that Jefferson didn’t say that a nullification of the act is a pretty decent remedy. He didn’t say that nullification is just a rightful remedy, or even a good idea to try after voting bums out or going to court. He told us that when the feds exercise powers they’re not supposed to exercise, We’re not supposed to wait for the federal government to correct itself. Jefferson’s advice is that we must resist violations of our rights on a state level – every time it happens.

Around the country, there’s a lot of talk about nullification – but what is it, really? I can think of no better way to define it than how Tenth Amendment Center research analyst Derek Sheriff has done – by describing 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 one’s own state.

Nullification is something that’s already happening around the country – and Derek explains the process:

Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. 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 any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.

At its very core, nullification is any action on a state level that results in some federal law being null and void – and of no effect. It’s about “We the People” exercising our rights whether the politicians or judges in Washington D.C want to give us “permission” to exercise those rights or not. We don’t need no stinkin’ permission.

HEMPCON

I recently went to an event called Hemp Con down in my part of the state – Los Angeles. This is a big event at the LA convention center – with loads of vendors and businesses from every angle you can think of in support of the marijuana industry.

There were home security companies to help protect your weed, solar power companies to help you grow your weed, doctors giving out medical marijuana cards to virtually anyone with $80 and an hour of time. There were even delivery services – you can get your marijuana delivered to you 24 hours a day…in 30 minutes or less. The pizza companies have nothing on these guys! It was amazing if you think about it from an economic standpoint – this was capitalism, the free market – working its wonders around an industry.

What’s the point?

Virtually every single one of those businesses was either directly violating federal law, or aiding someone else in doing so because marijuana is illegal, according to the feds – but not the constitution – in all situations. And guess what – no ATF or DEA thugs shut the place down. Business functioned, people did what they wanted to in freedom, and that was that.

In fact, in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that state medical marijuana laws were illegal. At that time there were 10 states that had such laws. Since that court ruling came down, not one single state has repealed their law. And today, there’s even more adding on – there’s now 15 states defying Washington DC on marijuana, and they’re getting away with it.

THE BLUEPRINT

When enough people say no to unconstitutional laws, regulations, and mandates…and enough states pass laws to back those people up, there’s not much the federal government can do, but slowly and consistently back off. There’s no tanks rolling into Los Angeles to shut down the dispensaries. This is far from perfect, but it can work, and it is working right now.

Get the New Book Today!

Whether it’s gun rights, or health freedom, or maybe someone should start rejecting the Department of Education because we’re sick of the federal government controlling our schools…the solution to our problems does not lie with the federal government. It lies in our states, and with ourselves.

THE BIG QUESTION

So here’s the final question – and my big challenge to you today. When it happens some day, and it will, that the federal government tells you that you have to purchase some healthcare plan, and you start thinking about penalties for violating that “law” – ask yourself this…do you have as much courage as the pot smokers?

I sure hope you do. Because we need to exercise our rights whether they give us “permission” to or not!

The issue of state sovereignty, and a balance of power between State and federal governments, as explicitly stated in the 10th Amendment, should span political ideologies and party lines. But many, particularly Democrats and folks leaning toward the left side of the political aisle, misunderstand, believing that “tenthers” belong exclusively to the “right” or to the Republican Party.

Undeniably, some have hijacked the Tenth Amendment for their own causes, narrowly applying the principles of state sovereignty and limited federal power to specific issues. But the Tenth Amendment Center stands for an even application of the Tenth and constitutional principles, limiting the federal government to its enumerated powers, even in cases where we may find the outcomes advocated by the feds favorable.

Our eyes remain singularly focused on the process, regardless of political outcome. We stand solidly committed to James Madison’s summary of the powers delegated to the federal government.

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. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which the last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

True advocates of the Tenth Amendment don’t necessarily oppose government health care solutions. We just insist health care falls under state authority and any government run system must evolve at the state level. We don’t necessarily favor the legalization of drugs, but understand that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to prosecute a drug war. Each state must make its own decisions about the legalization of marijuana and other substances. “Tenthers” don’t necessarily oppose public funding for art, but recognize the federal government does not have the authority to pass out money for the arts. States must create their own mechanisms for art funding, if they deem it a priority. Political liberals should welcome the intended constitutional restrictions on waging war.

Democrats as well as Republicans, those leaning toward the political left as well as those leaning to the right, should embrace the Tenth Amendment, because it protects every citizen from the dangers of concentrated power. The founders created dual sovereignty for this very reason. They feared the tyranny inherent in big, centralized governments.

Justice Antonin Scalia articulated this principle brilliantly in a 1996 Supreme Court Ruling striking down parts of the Brady bill in Mack/Printz v. USA.

“The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people.

The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected by incursion from the other ‘ – -’a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.’ U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 838 (1995) (Kennedy J., concurring). The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens.

Get the New Book Today!

“As Madison expressed it: ‘The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere’ The Federalist No. 39 at 245.

“This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty”

In an era of increasing political divisiveness, perhaps citizens embracing widely varied political ideologies can find a rallying spot and common ground around the Constitution, the 10th Amendment and the political processes brilliantly devised by our founders. Perhaps a rediscovery of the constitutional principles envisioned by our founders can serve as a bridge spanning different ideologies. While we may disagree on the role of government in various aspects of our lives, surely we can agree on working out those differences within a system designed to protect the freedom’s and liberties of every citizen.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Debra Medina will be joining us as a featured speaker at Nullify Now! on 09-04-10 in Ft Worth, Texas.  There are just a few tickets left – Click here for more information and to reserve tickets now – or call 888-71-TICKETS

*******

The ties between England and what would become the United States of America were severed, as Tench Coxe, delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress, put it, in large part due to the perversion and mal-administration of the British government.[i] Two hundred years later, Americans are manifesting similar levels of frustration with government and inflammatory terms like secession are being used by politicians ever anxious to grab the media spotlight and secure their re-election.  But what have they done exactly to correct the “perversion and mal-administration” of the government?

Our founders, astute students of history, well understood as St. Augustine had described, Libido Dominandi, the lust to dominate. They knew that if permitted, the federal government would transgress the limits of the constitution, and, as Thomas Jefferson remarked, “[annihilate] the state governments and erect upon their ruins a general consolidated government.”[ii]

Mr. Jefferson wrote in 1799, “lest [our] silence be construed into an acquiescence…the states…being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of [the federal government’s] infraction; and “That a nullification, by those sovereignties [states] of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument [the Constituion] is the rightful remedy.[iii]

Mr. Jefferson understood that a stronger response than mere petitions and protests would be necessary but he sought ever to preserve the union and thus viewed secession only as a last resort.

He understood that the states must stand in defense of the liberty of the people.  He knew the federal government would seek to annihilate the states and dominate all American life.

Thomas E. Woods Jr., in his recent best-seller, Nullification, references state representative John Breckinridge’s comments to the Kentucky legislature of 1799, “the people at the state level ought to make a legislative declaration that, being unconstitutional, they [federal actions] are therefore void and of no effect.”  With regard to unconstitutional federal actions, Breckinridge hoped “Congress might repeal them, or that decent judges might refuse to act upon them” but in the interim recognized the states obligation to “nullify those acts and to protect their citizens from their operation.”

What stops us from following in Mr. Jefferson’s footsteps and declaring Obamacare and Cap and Trade Initiatives, “palpable violations of the said constitution” and “consider a silent acquiescence as highly criminal?”  In that vein, the Texas legislature has the “right and is duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of evil, and for maintaining our authorities, rights and liberties” declaring this federal action unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect in the sovereign state of Texas![iv] Failing to do so, we, as Congressman Edward Livingston of New York declared in 1798 “deserve the chains which these measures are forging” for us.[v]

Debra Medina got involved in politics in the 1990s and became Wharton County GOP chairwoman in 2004. She was a high-level volunteer for Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign, and served as Interim State Coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty. At the 2008 Republican Party of Texas state convention in Houston, she lost her bid for state GOP vice chairwoman. In 2008, she decided to run for governor. Visit her new organization at WeTexans.com

[i] The Debate on the Constitution, Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle Over Ratification, Part One: September 1787 to February 1788, 22, Literary Classics of the United States, New York, N.Y., 1993.

[ii] The Kentucky Resolutions of 1799, Elliot, Jonathan Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Volume IV, 544-545, Lippincott (1907).

[iii] ibid

[iv] Ibid

[v] Woods, Thomas E. Jr., Nullification, How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21^st Century. P. 53 Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2010.

Federalism is a form of governing in a republic that was launched in earnest, for the first time, through the efforts of the 1787Constitutional Convention.   The men who gathered for the convention did not agree on everything and the states’ citizens they represented also disagreed on many things.  This is not unusual then or now, we humanoids are known to disagree.  The science of government is not a perfect science.  People have different agendas, alliances, and concerns.  Yet, when the doors opened on Sept. 17^th, 1787 a concept emerged that would be debated across the young country, in the sovereign States’ conventions gathered to consider ratification.

Those who embraced the document as it was written were committed to establishing a federalist republic with a fundamental foundation in the rule of law over the rule of kings.  Those who did not embrace the document were also committed to establishing a federalist republic formed on the same concept yet felt the original document still lacked the safeguards necessary for protecting the people of all States through the addition of a Bill of Rights with the keystone set in the duty of states to check the general government as well as the general government having a check on states.  Both understood it was an attempt to develop a republican government that protected against factional largess and majority abuse over minorities while providing people an opportunity to live in a free environment.

From New York to Virginia, New Hampshire to the Carolinas there was one thing many came to agree on in their respective conventions.  Federalism’s success depended on the vertical separation of powers as much as the horizontal separation.  Maintaining government over the daily concerns of people at the lowest level possible was necessary for self-government to thrive and kingly government to have no place in the future of the United States.  Listen to a few of the proposals added to their ratification (as quoted from United States: Formation of the Union, GPO, 1927):

“This Convention doth also declare that no Section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a Construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the General Government of the Union.” (South Carolina Ratifying Convention, May 3^rd, 1788)

“First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised.” (New Hampshire State Ratifying Convention, 1^st Amendment Proposal, June 6^th, 1788)

“First, That each State in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of the Federal government.” (Virginia State Ratifying Convention, 1^st Amendment Proposal, June 7^th, 1788)

“I. THAT each state in the union shall, respectively, retain every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the Federal government.” (North Carolina State Ratifying Convention, 1^st Amendment Proposal, Nov. 21^st, 1789)

“1^st The United States shall guarantee to each State its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United Sates.” (Rhode Island State Ratifying Convention, 1^st Amendment proposal, May 29^th, 1790)

All of these states, and more, caused the very first Congress of the United States to take action.  This action resulted in the proposal of 12 amendments to the Constitution.  Why?  Turn to the preamble of the resolution submitted to the States, on March 4^th, 1789, and read the answer;

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:”

What were the States attempting to prevent?  “Misconstruction or abuse of it’s (the National Government) powers.”  What was necessary?  Simply “that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added!”  The twelfth proposal (which became the tenth amendment) was the keystone that set at ease the many States, and their citizens, that had made separation of vertical powers their first proposal as part of the ratification process.

Historians tell us Alexander Hamilton was a strong nationalist, even perhaps a monarchist.  Surely such a man disagreed on the need for State duty or power.  If we can find no other voice among the founders who felt the States had no business checking thenational government it would be his.  We get a full insight into his view of federalism during the 1788 New York Convention.  He extolled;

“This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance.  It forms a double security to the people.  If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from over passing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them.” (Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1788)

Plainly all those who disagreed on so many aspects of government found common ground in the need for each State to maintain their duty to protect their citizens.  Citizens of each State had a duty to insure their States retained their constitutional sovereignty, a duty to support legislators who put a check on general power, who interposed on the citizens behalf.  It is for this reason James Madison words make sense when writing, in Federalist 39, “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”

Federalism was to become known as a grand and noble experiment.  The very document and structure created would cause debates and discussions around the globe.  It would require the people to stay actively involved locally, especially within their homes and communities, while electing statesmen who would honor an oath and defend their rights whether elected to represent them in the general, state, or local government.  Human nature was going to be put to a test and those who disagreed on the finer points within the science of government were going to be tasked with finding agreements as well as compromises when necessary.

Federalism not nationalism, the debate did not end in the 1780s or 1790s.  It raged on as men struggled with temptations.  Even the staunchest believers in federalism gave way when pressed as Jefferson did with the Louisiana Purchase and embargos that brought the wrath of northern states upon him.  It was also Jefferson, even earlier, along with Hamilton that spawned the rise of the first major factional divide we refer to as political parties.  Political parties are just factions; special interest groups with a platform that shifts with the whims of its members as it struggles for footholds into political power.  Yet, as early as these struggles occurred there was not a single effort to end federalism or repeal the 10^th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.  Long after Hamilton and Jefferson had left this world Joseph Story showed there was still a large level of belief in the institution.

“The state governments have a full superintendence and control over the immense mass of local interests of their respective states, which connect themselves with the feelings, the affections, the municipal institutions, and the internal arrangements of the whole population. They possess, too, the immediate administration of justice in all cases, civil and criminal, which concern the property, personal rights, and peaceful pursuits of their own citizens…”So that the executive and legislative branches of the national government depend upon, and emanate from the states. Every where the state sovereignties are represented; and the national sovereignty, as such, has no representation.” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833)

Yet our course has been altered despite checks and balance, despite separation of powers, and despite having a history to learn from, improve upon, and grow in self-governing liberty.  The 10^th Amendment still has never been repealed yet people have long allowed the notion of separation to slip their minds.  Sold on an idea of democracy, majority rule, and a federal government is the governing body that holds the answers (if our chosen party’s personality sits as executive) politics is that area of life few want to hear about and fewer still want to study.

Keystone to our liberty

We still disagree on many things yet when is the last time anyone even debated federalism or nationalism, democracy or complex republic?  Recently?  Indeed, recently the debate is starting to gain steam once again.  Not among the many but definitely among the few, similar in our history to the 1760s and early 1770s.

Those debating are finding plenty to disagree upon yet more and more are beginning to once again realize there is agreement to be found in federalism’s arms.  A nation so large can only be free when politically approached locally, it simply makes sense to those who study as no society has prospered long under democracy and freedom never thrives under the rule of kings.

Are you studying once again?  Are you reading the words of those men who developed our fundamental principles?  Have you listened to the words of Jefferson, when written to Judge William Johnson back in 1823, and found truth when he stated;

[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore … never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.

Gary Wood is the Education Advisor for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. He works with the Utah 912 States’ Rights Coalition and Hosts March of Liberty Radio every Saturday and Sunday evening at 7pm EST on Blog Talk Radio. He is a lifetime member of the VFW among other groups but more important to him is his title of grandpa. “According to Thomas Jefferson the 10th Amendment is keystone to our Constitution. We must restore the keystone so we can secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity, a goal of our Founders and a goal we must still strive to achieve.”

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

Obama, the great centralizer, recently stated that he was looking for the right ass to kick. With this now famous statement he hoped to divert public attention from the failures of centralized power and begin to set a public mood against the oil industry and for expanded regulation and taxation. Other recent federal actions and statements make it painfully obvious that the federal government has zero interest in backing any plan to clean up the gulf in a timely manner.

While the crisis demands a federal response to help with stopping the leak and cleaning up the gulf, the ultimate goal of this administration is centralization of power. The following responses to the gulf crisis are effective methods in use today by Obama’s government to further this goal:

• Present false arguments for centralized power; ignoring the disastrous role regulation played in creating the crisis
• Attack and blackmail BP, and thus the oil industry as a whole, for a crisis created by faulty regulation that forced bad decisions
• Further the crisis by refusing to help clean up the disaster and hindering state and private action
• Leverage the emotional and financial impact on states and individuals to create a misguided street-level demand to pass the climate bill, giving more power to the feds

Yes, the ass Obama wants to kick is state sovereignty and individual freedom; so that his administration can centralize power.

“Centralize of Else!”

Make no mistake the climate bill is about control of the oil industry, individual state economies and your individual freedom with regards to energy use and employment. A year ago, the “science” of global warming was the “crisis” that would be used to require action and passage of a climate bill. Fortunately, the validity of global warming as a “science” was fatally compromised because the prominent scientists of the field were proven to have manipulated the data that formed the foundation of the practice. Hoping to turn the page and centralize, Obama is attempting to redirect righteous anger over the gulf crisis and turn it into something it is not, a climate crisis.

In his Oval office speech regarding the leak, Obama’s stated intention was to pass a climate bill. Apparently, the gulf crisis is just the excuse needed to centralize power by passing a bill that will rage across the economy; killing jobs and bankrupting states. There is undeniable proof of inevitable failure in the results of other countries. Spain, a “green” economy trailblazer, is only one step behind Greece as a bankrupt EU member and the great-sounding “green” economy has cursed the country with only one new “green” job created for every two “real” jobs lost.

Another call for centralization occurred when Obama attempted to ridicule proponents of the Constitution. He taunted:

“Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much,”

The “folks” are right. There is a simple answer here for anyone with even the most basic understanding of the Constitution should understand; first, the federal government has certain enumerated responsibilities that the “folks” have a right to demand attention to; and second, for every other responsibility the “folks” are duty-bound to force the federal government to back off. The feds have usurped the responsibility of taking care of disasters such as the Gulf crisis. Since the Feds are not thrilled with the responsibility but still like taking in cash from states and individuals to fund organizations like FEMA and the EPA, perhaps the problem is the centralization of power itself.

Obama continued:

“Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms.”

Again, the “folks” are right. As in the federal response to the gulf crisis, the greedy desire to centralize power trumps the need to cleanup and repair the gulf. Historically, this trail of power abuse is clear.  The Obama government always chooses consolidated power over individual freedom or the actual needs of the people; whether it’s health care, internet, the automotive industry, the financial industry, the economy, and worst of all the foundation of our liberties, the Constitution. A quick review of this list indicates that most industries are directly and negatively affected by “this guy” and his anti-American policies; and respect for our Constitution simply does not exist.

Is our country better off  with power centralized in DC? Let’s consider a few of the failures of centralization in the Gulf crisis.

Centralization enables Harmful Legislation

At the heart of this crisis is the collaboration of government and corporate power. In many ways, this collboration resulted in a situation where the means of production were privately owned by BP; but significant aspects of the business were controlled by misguided government regulation.

This problem goes back to legislation signed into law by President Clinton, but passed by a Republican congress. The legislation limited the liabilities of any disaster related to drilling to $75 million while giving the power to determine drill sites to the federal government. For the oil industry, this was an incredible deal as it gave them freedom to drill anywhere knowing that the maximum liability would be limited. It was a great deal for the federal government because they could satisfy environmentalist pressure to keep oil wells far from American shores. It was a horrible deal for “we the people” and states because drilling in deep water significantly increases risk and any resulting damage would ultimately be at taxpayer expense (minus $75 million).

Centralization results in Conflict of Interest

The conflict of interest between states and the federal government is embodied in the battle between Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal and Obama. Initially, the federal government failed to take any action that might limit the damage or clean up the massive amounts of oil pooling in the gulf. As a response to this inaction, Jindal entered a request to protect the coast using booms. These requests were ignored.  Recently, state initiated action launched ships configured to extract oil from the water. Rapidly, the Coast Guard demanded that these ships “cease and desist” cleanup efforts based on a drummed up technicality involving life jacket regulation.

Over the course of the crisis, the federal response has shifted from apathy for state needs to outright obstruction of any state attempts to clean up. There are two very real results from an emaciated gulf coast. First, it will drive an emotional response from the public that might be diverted to help with the passage of the climate change bill. Second, the economies of Gulf States will suffer immeasurably.

Knowing this, why would the federal government feel the need to impede cleanup efforts? The only logical conclusion, given the silence from the White House on this matter, is that the President is more interested in selling Climate Change and further centralization power than helping with cleanup. Likely, the damage to state economies represents a “win” for the federal government too, since this region is typically less inclined to choose servitude to a central authority over freedom.

Centralization destroys Constitutional Government

You cannot have a largely federal government and maintain the chains on the government needed to protect liberty and freedom. As government gets larger, freedom and liberty of the individual by necessity shrink. As a more power is centralized, the voice of distant individuals becomes less and less influential until the people themselves have no voice, only forced duties.

The gulf incident includes numerous conflicts with constitutional government, none as clear as the federal government’s outright theft of a private company’s private property without due process of law. The Fifth Amendment specifically states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.^” The Office of the President clearly coerced BP to set aside a $20 billion slush fund for use by the federal government. Now, I am not arguing that BP should be without liabilities; I am not arguing that the force of law should not be used to acquire compensation for victims; I am however, strongly arguing that the Constitutional restraints on executive power be upheld.

Once set, unconstitutional precedents are used over and over, that is why they should always be denied even during crisis, I’d say especially during crisis because the emotional response is too strong. Consider the abuse of this new precedent when disaster strikes on a lesser scale causing property damage. Would it be legal for the President to force the company to set up a $100 million slush fund without due process? Who sets the amount? Would the amount be the same for a windmill or solar panel manufacturer as it would be for an oil company? Would a failure in Texas result in the same penalty as a failure in Illinois?

The answer to these questions would depend entirely on who held executive power. In other words, this becomes a system that is ruled by men, not laws.

Kicking the Ass of States and Individuals

When a government’s motive is consistently at odds with the people’s needs and the government is willing to enact harmful legislation and defy the constitutional limits of power then liberty and freedom of the general population is threatened. The gulf crisis is a strong example of the willingness of centralized government to use fabricated powers and propaganda to destroy lives in the relentless pursuit of power.

It could not be clearer; your ass is the one that Obama seeks to kick. So what can be done?

Decentralization of power is necessary to maintain government that can be forced to maintain a motive more in-line with citizen’s needs. Decentralization based on our Constitution means that power specifically not enumerated by the Constitution must be liberated and placed back in the hands of the state governments and the people. After 100 years of ignoring this division of power, we are faced with a daunting task; but our country cannot continue to be the land of the free without decentralization.

There are many tools that can be used to decentralize; from fighting legislation at the federal level; to using state level governments to nullify laws that states deem unconstitutional; to outright secession. The first option has been an absolute failure for a long period of time. Federal representatives have been unable and unwilling to respect these enumerated power and we have seen the central government grow in massive leaps and bounds.

Instead of looking to Washington DC, we must focus on what our state governments can do. This leaves us with nullification and secession as the choices to maintain freedom. If you are still not convinced that centralization of power is a bad thing, look to your history books; it always fails and it almost always fails very badly.

Brian Roberts [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Texas Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Some say that you can “vote with your feet” – a phrase popularized by Ronald Reagan (most often taken out of context) in 1976 and a philosophy some attribute to Ayn Rand which was alluded to in Atlas Shrugged. Nevertheless, taken for only the meaning of the phrase in itself, it is questionable whether that philosophy exists today or if it is even plausible. Others say, “All politics are local,” a catchphrase quote from Democrat Thomas O’Neill. However catchy these phrases might be, they are hardly true if we stare realism in the face.

Evidence of this can be seen in the back room dealings, the handling of legislation of the House and Senate, and the constant push against the will of the people. Last week, I watched a live vote on C-Span of the health-care reform bill and was appalled by the remarks, demeanor, and the political bribes that surrounded this legislation. Who was it that said “transparency?”

That is a joke – nothing more than a campaign ad to gain power along with the slogan of change and hope. Pelosi, Reid and Obama have no such knowledge of the meaning of transparency. What they do know better than anything is “agenda.” For all the Democrats that are waiting to come after me, let me go ahead and say the Republicans have shown the same tactics, so the matter is not unprecedented on either side.

So, the votes were cast – just a little over enough for a win. Slightly fishy, as I am sure Pelosi knows who is up for a tough race for their seat and who is not. This is an obvious sign that this bill is highly unpopular. I would love to say all this came as a surprise, but it doesn’t – not now, not in this era. The federal government voting against the will of the people in order to fulfill their own wishes and desires is now the common trend. Whether you believe this legislation is right or wrong, you cannot negate the fact that an overwhelming majority of the public was against it.

Are there problems with our health care system? Yes, absolutely. Did the majority of people believe this was the answer? The answer: simply no. Argue with the data, not me. Therefore, the trust in our federal government dwindles and again the approval rating of the Congress drops even lower. As stated last week, give them all ten points of standard deviation and they are viewed as an utter failure by the majority.

They cannot run a Social Security program, the US Postal Service, Medicaid, Medicare, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, yet they can run a health care system? To the non-believers – do you not love paying Social Security taxes every two weeks? And to what end? Long ago a promise was made that this money would be placed in a trusted fund; not so – spent, disappeared, and we have still racked up a massive debt. China is on its way to owning the United States. Wherever you stand on the aisles of politics, common logic should say you cannot spend what you do not have no matter how good you think it might be.

If the money is not there, it simply is not there. Bluntly speaking, the money is not there unless you want to steal from the rich and possibly the middle class, which is simply socialism. If you have doubts that it is socialism, read Marx. The underlying tenant of Marx’s political philosophy: redistribution of wealth from beginning to end. Simply stated, stealing what people have worked hard for because others feel that they are entitled to something. Hope for a utopian society? Not in this life.

Maybe you want this and maybe you do not. My assumption is that the many hard working American’s do not. Why would they? Another assumption: those who do not want to work and earn want things handed to them on a silver platter as if they are due to be paid something. Any reasonable person should know that no one in this life is entitled to anything. What do we deserve? At most, we should embrace charity and help those in need – not mandates from an ever increasing federal government.

What is next? No one knows with certainty, but I believe the smiles on Obama’s, Pelosi’s, and Reid’s face will soon change. Yet, another power monger will step in to fill their shoes no matter what party wins the favor of the people. That is, unless we can truly say, “All politics are local.” However, this requires the will of the people and the power of the states and a certain degree of boldness regarding state rights.

Thomas Jefferson once had the fortitude to stand against this and established the doctrine of nullification as he opposed an overreaching federal government in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. A profound statement by Jefferson:

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 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. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Therefore, a line is drawn in the sand between the Congress, the States, and the will of the people. Of course, men of valor comparable to Jefferson must be elected at the state level and this solely depends on the people and a gallant effort to bring power back to the states. To this end, it might be plausible that soon we can all confidently say, “All politics are local” and you may truly have the ability to “vote with your feet.” If the majority of a state wants it, let it be – let them say yes. If they do not, let it be – let them say nay and adopt the doctrine of nullification. Only then will power rest in the hands of the states and the people, which happens to be their diminishing tenth amendment constitutional right.

This diminishing tenth amendment right is a breaking point that we undoubtedly reached long ago. And to that I quote Thomas Jefferson:

“Whensoever the General Government assumes un-delegated powers, its acts are un-authoritative, void, and of no force.”

Shane Musgrove [send him email] is a freelance writer living in Vail and Denver, Colorado.

The Roman historian Titus Livius once called Rome “the greatest nation in the world.” He wrote those words in a time of moral and political decline, and Livy was hoping by outlining the greatness of the once proud republic, the Roman people would arrest the decline and embrace the principles that had made Rome great. Livy argued that without understanding their history, the Roman people would neither be able to “endure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them.”

But Livy failed to recognize the catastrophic effect empire and expansion had on the Roman spirit. By expanding north and attempting to assimilate the Germanic peoples and the Celts into Roman culture, Rome sealed its own demise. The Germans and Celts never fully embraced Rome, and those who did retained some element of their own political and cultural identity. Romans were outnumbered by Germanic peoples in their own army, and the disintegration of the Empire seemed inevitable as the fringes of the Empire came under constant assault from groups unwilling to assimilate. There was never a Roman “nation” outside of Rome. The men, money, and material needed to build and then hold the Empire were wasted, while the vices and decadence of the ruling class in Rome wrecked the republic. The human cost of the Roman Empire was incalculable.

On a human scale, decentralization made more sense for those under the yoke of Roman domination. Constant wars against foreign peoples, heavy taxes, and alien government was for many an unfair trade for Roman laws, “stability, and “protection.” Certainly, many people in Europe prospered under Roman control and the “Pax Romana,” but the internal tensions and cultural sacrifices were too large of a burden for the Empire to contain. It was only a matter of time before people realized that they were better off under local control.

Studying the rise and decline of empires has long been instructive for Americans, and for decades, historians, philosophers, economists, diplomats, statesmen, and others have warned against the American Empire. Yet, rarely did those who railed against expansion focus on the human cost of the empire and the political and social marginalization that naturally follows an impersonal government. Like Rome, a demographic map from the 2000 United States Census (see below) emphasizes that an American “nation” does not exist, and it is only through the power and propaganda of the “United State” that decentralization has failed to materialize. Obviously, sections still exist and the human cost of the American empire within the 50 States appears to be significant on several levels.

First, the United States should be at minimum broken into the several cultural sections clearly defined by the map. The Northeast, or Deep North, has a cultural identity vastly different than the South. The West, most importantly the Southwest, has a cultural mix inconsistent with the rest of the United States. Richard Henry Lee, among others, recognized this in 1787 when he wrote in the Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican that, “free elective government cannot be extended over large territories [and] one government and general legislation alone, never can extend equal benefits to all parts of the United States: Different laws, customs, and opinions exist in the different states, which by a uniform system of laws would be unreasonably invaded. The United States contain about a million of square miles, and in half a century will, probably, contain ten millions of people; and from the center to the extremes is about 800 miles.” The United States now covers almost 4 million square miles and around three-hundred million people. If Lee was correct in 1787, and he was, then he would surely be correct today. Cultural integrity is better maintained by smaller political entities.

Second, one of the longstanding critiques of large governments is the impersonal and ultimately tyrannical nature of powerful centralized authority. The French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu in his The Spirit of Laws opined that a large republic was unmanageable unless consolidated in a federal or confederated system. British philosopher David Hume, in Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth, argued that decentralization was the only way to ensure the greatest level of liberty. Of course, the founding generation was well aware of the arguments for decentralization set forth by the classical Greeks and those of both Enlightenment philosophers.

Lee, in the same Letters From the Federal Farmer, followed a similar line of thinking we he suggested that the people of the States should have a means of defense against the central government. He said, “I believe the position is undeniable, that the federal government will be principally in the hands of the natural aristocracy, and the state governments principally in the hands of the democracy, the representatives in the body of the people. These representatives in Great-Britain hold the purse, and have a negative upon all laws. We must yield to circumstances, and depart something from this plan, and strike out a new medium, so as to give efficacy to the whole system, supply the wants of union, and leave the several states, or the people assembled in the state legislatures, the means of defense.” In other words, Lee was arguing for the States to have a limited negative power over the central government—a “defense”—to protect the cultural, economic, and social interests of their separate communities, an action called nullification or state interposition today. It was the most democratic and humane thing to do.

Third, most opponents of decentralization, secession, or nullification argue that minorities would be unjustly impacted should States begin to reassert their sovereignty through nullification or secession. This is dead wrong. As John C. Calhoun emphasized, nullification was used to protect minority interests from the tyranny of the majority. Secession followed the same pattern. Regardless, American minorities today believe that they have the greatest power in the central government, and that State and local communities, particularly in the South, would infringe on minority rights. But this position belies reality.

Data from two Southern States, Mississippi and Alabama, clearly indicates that black Americans are better represented at the State level than in the central government. There is currently one black member of the United States Senate, an appointee, and blacks only comprise approximately nine percent of the United States House of Representatives. In total, blacks account for around thirteen percent of the American population, so they are vastly underrepresented in Washington D.C. Conversely, blacks hold thirty-one percent of the seats in the lower house of the Mississippi legislature and twenty-three percent of the seats in the upper house.

In Alabama, blacks comprise twenty-three percent of both the lower and upper house. Blacks account for thirty-seven percent of the total population in Mississippi and twenty-six percent of the total population in Alabama, making representation in both States more equitable than in Washington D.C. If counties could have a negative veto over State law, minorities would have an even greater political and social impact in their own community. This would comport to Hume’s ideal republic and to the nature of minority Cantons in the Swiss federation.

As Kirkpatrick Sale recently pointed out, decentralization has once again entered the public discourse. Unfortunately, it is often portrayed as simply reactionary when in fact it is the American tradition. Selling it in an era of economic and social collapse has become easier, but the rhetorical roadblocks of racism and treason still exist. Of course, decentralization still has to be sold, but it can be done by emphasizing that the prospect of more local control offers greater political and economic liberty and stronger protection for cultural, religious, or racial minorities. It is the future of America, the future of a free world, and it will bring humanity back to government.

Brion McClanahan holds a Ph.D in American history from the University of South Carolina and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (Regnery, 2009).

For all their professed love of reason and logic, libertarians can be damned unreasonable sometimes. Consider this post from the blog Live Oaks on the supposed injustice of the Tenth Amendment:

Glenn Beck… recently made a statement on his radio show that the states have a right to institute universal health care, hand out free cars, etc. if the citizens of that state want such things. He stated that the federal government is barred from such actions, but the states are not. In other words, he is not opposed to violating individual rights; he just wants it done on a more local level.

This is a typical approach by conservatives… They do not challenge the premise that the individual must be forced to sacrifice for the “common good”–they merely want to argue over who will make that determination.

…This isn’t a defense of individual rights; it is an invitation for the states to establish fifty separate tyrannies.

I will be the first to admit that Glenn Beck is very confused about some aspects of liberty and federalism (particularly involving Abraham Lincoln), but he has this part exactly right.

Unfortunately, the fear of local despotism is a common and misguided complaint of libertarian opponents to the Tenth Amendment movement. Many of them seem to think that because certain people in certain states might favor programs that run counter to the philosophy of individual liberty, the entire system of divided sovereignty that was put in place by America’s founders should be scrapped.

But, if they refuse to trust home rule and it’s obvious the current system is a disaster, these libertarians would leave us with nothing more than the vague hope of some spontaneous and radical shift in public consciousness.

That, or the rise of some benevolent dictator willing to impose his or her vision of individual freedom nationally from D.C., whether the voters want it or not.

Which, as a political strategy, is nothing short of absurd. It often takes more than well-reasoned theory to change someone’s mind, and it always takes power to impose someone’s will, even if that will is liberty.

Unless the people demand their freedom from the bottom up, by gaining control over their local and state governments, the corruptible power that must be centralized in order to enact (and enforce) a liberty agenda from the top down would no doubt immediately be co-opted for something completely different.

In fact, it is a fundamental flaw of otherwise good constitutionalists like Ron Paul that they even seek the presidency; an increasingly imperial office that should be castrated through neglect, not further aggrandized.

It is precisely because ignorant or malicious voters so often support government-sponsored looting of their neighbors that decentralized power is critical. Human beings are flawed, and even with the best of intentions may engage in behavior that is irrational or dishonest. However, the smaller the geographic or economic area that can be affected by a single misguided administration or policy, the more likely it is that enough citizens can be educated and motivated to fix the problem.

Or that they can physically relocate their tax dollars to a more suitable environment.

The entire point of freedom is to protect the right of someone else to do something you think is stupid, or even wrong. Otherwise, when the winds of popular opinion shift, who will protect your right to do the same?

That holds true for individuals composing units of government as well. We must respect one another enough as Americans to allow the citizens of each sovereign state to decide for themselves the size and scope of government they desire.

Those states that choose wisely will prosper, while those that choose poorly will suffer the consequences, and have to learn from their mistakes or perish.

Based on what we know about the free market, it is simply not credible to claim that decentralizing the federal government’s current power monopoly through the Tenth Amendment would turn America into 50 isolated tyrannies or fiefdoms.

In reality, spurred on by the information revolution, a return to robust federalism would quickly unleash the cleansing forces of market competition on our stagnant political economy. And what libertarian could argue with that?

Josh is a proud “tenther”, freelance writer, and activist originally from the Washington, D.C. area. He is a blogger for TAC’s Tenther Grapevine and the State Chapter Coordinator for the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center.