With our Democratic Congress and President slowly eating away at our Constitutional rights and “changing” the way our government intrudes into our lives and business, some states are fighting back. Bills are currently working their way through Congress that impose weapon and ammunition standards on states, forbid states from selling their own land, force states to comply with energy and emissions standards, and even a push to give state voting rights to D.C. residents – a change that would require a Constitutional amendment and possibly other challenges.

New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Missouri and Washington are just some of those states doing just that. Other states are sure to follow suit with their assertion of 10th Amendment rights, which state:

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.

New Hampshire’s House Concurrent Resolution 6 states that “any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America.”

Acts that would cause the state to invoke this extreme measure include:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition

This is notable and important because all too often we wonder what can be done about a federal government out of control. Not only would a state legally be able to declare its sovereignty, but also vote to rescind it’s Representatives and Senators from D.C.

Arizona’s HCR 2024 is also providing notice to the federal government to back off noting that “a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.” This is something I’ve been harping on for a few years now, both here and on the radio. Because of these violations, Arizona declares the following:

1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

Missouri is particularly perturbed by President Obama’s vaunted “Freedom of Choice Act” that he’s trying to push through Congress. This act “declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.” This is an obvious infraction upon state’s rights and led to Missouri’s assertion of sovereignty.

Missouri House Resolution 212 states:

Whereas, Barack Obama, President of the United States, has promised that one of the top priorities of his new Administration is to sign into law the “Freedom of Choice Act” which purports to classify abortion as a “fundamental right” equal in stature to the right of free speech and the right to vote – rights that, unlike abortion, are specifically enumerated in the United States Constitution; and

Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act would invalidate any “statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action” of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official, or any person acting under governmental authority, that would “deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose” abortion, or that would “discriminate against the exercise of the right…in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information”; and

Whereas, the federal Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any federal or state law “enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment” and would effectively prevent the State of Missouri from enacting similar protective measures in the future…

Because of this and other efforts by our newly appointed Socialist-minded government, “the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-fifth General Assembly, hereby declare our sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

Washington State makes it clear in their resolution that states “are not subordinate to” the federal government, quoting Constitutionalists as Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton. Tired of being considered “agents of the federal government”, House Joint Memorial 4009 also declared Washington State’s sovereignty.

That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

Retired Army Colonel – and American Patriot – Harry Riley tells us we can’t just stop there. “The next step is up to us,” he says. “[we have] to demand my State, your State to take the same action…….will you do it? Contact your State Representative and demand a similar resolution to NH, MO, WA, and AZ be introduced in your legislature….do it today.”

Phone calls are going out to my Texas and Alabama representatives the moment I hit “publish” on this post. It’s time we stand up to the encroachment of our rights by the federal government against the states by Repugnicans and Dumbocrats alike!

Let me ask you a couple of questions.  First, which demographic segment has the best voting record?  Meaning, of any age group, which group votes more regularly than any other?

Old people, right?  Retirees, seniors…old people.  No offense intended.

So if you wanted to propose a government entitlement program and your goal was to be elected to four terms in the White House, you would want to make the beneficiaries of this newly proposed program…old people, right?

Well if your name is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that would be your proposal.

In Social Security we see the United States’ shift from the Constitution to Socialism begin by proposing that the government “pay” seniors a retirement benefit that, at the time, none had paid into!  So an entire generation of “old people” have received their benefits, have died since, and have left the rest of us shackled down with an entitlement program that is both outdated, ineffective, and all but bankrupt, while an entire generation of Americans has been shackled down with the tax burden of paying for our forbearers retirement.

Oh, and did I mention the part about unconstitutional?

Now, throwing out the ‘U’ word is kind of harsh on first reading, but consider the facts.  The Constitution guarantees individuals the unalienable right (from the Declaration of Independence) to “the pursuit of happiness,” previously known as “the pursuit of property.”  In other words, our government guarantees me the right to pursue personal wealth!

Note:  Nothing in the Constitution guarantees that I, myself, personally, will achieve personal wealth, only that I am able to pursue wealth.  Property.  Toys, if you will.

Now, if I am amongst the unfortunate few who are unable to retire because I spent all of my income on toys, partying, or my seven wives, well, then I kind of did myself in.  Imagine what life might have been like had I settled at three wives and invested the alimony that I paid the other four.  I would retire a millionaire.

Now refer to the Constitution on this matter.  No such Power of the United States to “get your back” if you don’t – or can’t! – retire because you don’t – or can’t! – save!  The first rule of Finance is “consumption forgone equals investment.”  In other words, what you don’t spend, you can save and invest!  And in general, if done intelligently, investment generally grows.

So if growing one’s personal wealth involves, 1.) Earning an Income, 2.) Saving an excess, and 3.) Investing that excess, then it begs the question – can an individual out-invest the government?  In other words, can I outpace the Social Security program’s approximately 4% rate of return by investing in my own personal IRA or 401 (k) account?

Well, I have the last two years!  I have averaged approximately 20% growth in my personal retirement plans the last two years.  For those of you who know anything about investing in the market, you know that is not only good, it is great!

Inflation creeps along at about 3 to 3.5% per year, which means that at best your Social Security “investment,” also known as taxes, actually only increase at about ½ % per year.  If salaries increased at that rate we would see Revolution in the streets.  All the while, including inflation, my personal investing is increasing at above a 15% clip very comfortably.

Then you take into account the devaluation of the dollar and the fact that I am heavily invested in foreign funds and learn that my MBA in Finance (including International Finance) is paying for itself in about three ways!

And now we start hearing from Republican candidates for President on their proposed solutions for the future of the Social Security system and they are heavy on later retirement ages, lowered benefit amounts, and hybrid personal investment accounts.

The problem boils down to this:  The Constitution does not delegate this Power to the Congress, nor to the Federal Government.  The Power to pass the ‘Social Security Act’ and set up an entirely new organization within the Federal Government is not even granted to the Congress and the Government to enact.

Did you note that?  Go back and re-read the previous paragraph.

Once again, if you know anything about our Constitution, you know that it is a limited Constitution.  That means “The United States,” meaning the national government, did not set itself up.  It did not just spring forth from the ground one day.

The United States was instituted in the Declaration of Independence, and its government’s powers were enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.  Only those Powers delegated to the various branches of the federal government are given, and none of those includes the power to determine its own powers.

Our limited Constitution does not delegate the Power to pay retirement benefits, and it does not delegate the Power to delegate the Power to pay retirement benefits.  Note the distinction.  Our national government is not given the Power to determine what its Powers are.

Its Powers are explicitly enumerated, and in some cases implied as in the “Necessary and Proper Clause,” but in no way can the rational mind justify the trend towards Socialism that we began under Roosevelt and have continued all the way into the present, where elected Representatives who refuse to grant that which is not theirs to grant, namely S-CHIP, or children’s healthcare benefits, are reviled as some hideous beast for refusing to violate the Constitution.

Neither is it in the Powers of the government to engage in giving away healthcare insurance, nor is it in the Powers of the government to engage in the investments or retirement industries.  There are for-profit industries set up to provide these services, whose profits are taxed, and whose business it is to provide such services.

It is not the Power of our government to engage in business.  The concept of the “pursuit of happiness,” or property, entails that the government gets out of the way and allows individual creativity and drive be awarded by engaging in business.  Government has shown in every way at every opportunity a decided inability to engage in efficient business practices in areas that are necessary to carrying out the every day task of running the bureaucracy such as accounting, human resources, and payroll.  These tasks are even beginning to be outsourced to for-profit industry in order to streamline the government’s business practices.

Yet we expect an entity that cannot even pay its own employees efficiently to engage in for-profit areas effectively?  There is a reason its Powers are limited.  And if we want to add to those Powers, it is not left to the Federal Government, or its candidates, but to the Amendment process.

I suggest that we recall this, and quickly.

David Smith is gearing up for a run at the US House of Representatives.  His hot-button issue is States’ Rights. See more of his writings at his blog, http://silvertrombone.townhall.com

Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”

There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?

HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts–as opposed to willful criminal acts–is inconsistent with a free society.

HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence.

One of HR 1592′s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.

Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.

Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.