Texas has the opportunity to take matters into its own hands.

Opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with its embedded health insurance mandates, has stirred a widespread revival of interest in the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty issues.

The passage of the health care act opened the eyes of many previously apathetic citizens, making them aware of the rapidly expanding scope and influence of the federal government and its intrusiveness into  their everyday lives. They intuitively understand that requiring them to purchase health insurance falls far beyond the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Suddenly awake and alarmed by the fact that the federal government has grown so far out of control, and frustrated by what they see as the lack of responsiveness by politicians in D.C., many Americans find themselves looking for answers.

And they are turning to their states.

Fourteen states have sued, seeking to block implementation of the unconstitutional health care act. Twelve states, led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed in federal court in Pensacola.

“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,”  the lawsuit states.

But some states are asserting their own authority to block unconstitutional acts, recognizing that federal courts don’t stand as the sole arbiter of constitutionality.

On Nov. 16, Texas Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler) filed a bill in the Texas House of Representatives that would nullify federal health care legislation in the the Lone Star State. HB-297 asserts:

The federal Act is not authorized by the United States Constitution and violates the Constitution’s true meaning and intent as expressed by the founders of this country and the ratifiers of the Constitution.
The federal Act:
(1)  is invalid in this state;
(2)  is not recognized by this state;
(3)  is specifically rejected by this state; and
(4)  is null and void and of no effect in this state.

The bill takes things a step further, making it a crime for any official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of any corporation to enforce any part of the health care act in Texas, and imposes fines up to $5,000  and/or five years in prison for anyone convicted of doing so.

While some might call this legislation radical, it rests squarely within the scope of state power as understood by the framers of the Constitution. James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 that states not only have a right, but a duty to step in when the federal government oversteps its authority.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Tenth Amendment Center founder Michael Boldin said that Berman’s bill does not represent an extreme viewpoint and insists each state should determine the best path for its own citizens.

“There is nothing more extreme than having a federal government that refuses to abide by the laws that we the people of the several states delegated to it in the Constitution,” he said. “The important point here is that it’s up to the people of each state to determine what the best response may be. One state, as Wyoming did with its Firearms Freedom Act, may decide that penalties on federal agents is the rightful response.  Another, such as California with medical marijuana, may choose to create an environment conducive to non-compliance by masses of people. Either way – or somewhere in between – that’s the beauty of the American system. We can have widely varying actions, responses and viewpoints in different states while all living together in peace. One-size-fits-all solutions are actually the problem, and state-by-state decision-making is the natural response.”

Berman said that his bill faces an uphill battle as long as the current Texas House leadership remains in place. The legislation will likely end up bottled up in committee.

“The best chance for passage is to get rid of the current Speaker,” Berman said.

That speaker is Rep. Joe Straus (R – San Antonio)

Straus did not respond to an email request for comment.

Despite the fact that the bill faces long odds for passage, Boldin said introducing this type of legislation remains important,

“Whether or not there’s any guarantee of getting something passed is no reason to not do what’s right,” he said. “Champions look at insurmountable odds and take them on with passion, and that’s what We the People need to do in defense of our liberty.”

And its about baby steps. Boldin said he views the dismantling of an overreaching, bloated federal government a long-term project.

“Dealing with a constitutional monstrosity like Obamacare is going to take time. In the mid-90s, people around the country were saying that it was absurd for California to go it alone and try to pass a medical marijuana law. But they did, and today, we  see 15 states openly defying the federal government on this issue,” he said. “The blueprint is straightforward – when enough people say no to the federal government and enough states do so as well, there’s not much that the feds can do to enforce their unconstitutional ‘laws’ on us.”

Madison agreed, Writing in Federalist 46, he laid out the blueprint for constraining overreaching federal power.

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

Texas has taken the first step. Now the people of Texas need to rise up and insist on passage of the bill. Ultimately, the people’s voice will carry the day.

The question remains, will they speak?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Texas is the first state to see the Federal Health Care Nullification Act introduced. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect up to 10 other states considering such legislation in the 2011 legislative session. CLICK HERE – to learn more about the bill and track progress of the act around the country.

I, like many people, believe that the Constitution is not a living document.  The corollary to this principle is that if it is not living then it cannot die. However, the question of whether the Constitution is followed and enforced depends on you and me.  We introduced the legislation outlined in Part I of the plan and predictably many Obama defenders in our state House began calling us racist and secessionist. In fact, the quote from our Speaker Pro Tem Jeff Morris (D – Mount Vernon) was “We want to lead the state out of recession. They want to lead the state out of the country.”  Obviously, this is absurd.  The intent of the state sovereignty Bills are to erect barriers against an ever-encroaching federal bureaucracy, while keeping the nation unified. That said, Washington D. C. is on a course that will destroy our Constitutional Republic. Nationalized Health Care and a national Cap and Trade program will not lead us out of a recession but rather will further crush our economy.  If the federal government would get out of the way, we would be free as individual states to fix our own problems as the founders intended. [i]

To that end, recently some Attorneys General across the country are questioning the constitutionality of Nationalized Health Care.  In fact, at least 18 states are now suing the federal government claiming the $2.5 trillion healthcare system reform violates state sovereignty as protected in the U.S. Constitution and will force massive new spending on hard-pressed state governments.  Interestingly, some of the state Attorneys General claim that only the judicial branch may decide what is or is not constitutional but not state elected representatives or county sheriffs. [ii] This flies in the face of the requirement set forth in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution (Oath to support the Constitution binding both federal and state representatives).  To hold such a position renders that Oath of Office meaningless, and brings back the very scary proposition “befehl ist befehl” (an order is an order) used as a defense by Nazi officers at Nuremburg.  It is important to know where your State Attorney General stands on this issue because Part II of the plan deals with state and local enforcement of unconstitutional laws.

What follows is Part II of the plan.
Step 3:  Restore Sound and Honest Money
The control over the issuance of money is at the heart of sovereignty.  Our current fiat paper currency is losing value by the minute and you and I are paying for it by the day.  Most readers of this article know that since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 in order to “provide a safer, more flexible banking and monetary system” and ensure “stability in the purchasing power of the dollar.” Since that time the US dollar has lost 97% of its value.  So what can we do at the state level?  In order to restore a system of sound money two immediate pieces of legislation can be introduced:

1. Sound Money Resolution
2. Legal Tender Act

The more pressure states put on Congress to audit the Federal Reserve System, the greater the chance is that it will be exposed as a private group of bankers profiteering at public expense and then be phased out.  Like the state sovereignty resolutions, the Sound Money Resolution would put the government on notice to return to the original monetary system envisioned by our founders. [iii] This means an end to the fractional reserve banking as we know it and a return to currency that is backed by gold and silver and perhaps even commodities.

Dr. Edwin Viera Jr., a constitutional attorney and an expert in monetary theory who has litigated cases involving money issues, has said that the entire present monetary system is unconstitutional.  He proposes a precious-metals-based monetary system in which the state government collects part of its tax revenue from corporations in gold.  New Hampshire and Indiana, currently have that kind of legislation before them.  I would add that the next step should be to establish a private currency exchange in conjunction with a new monetary system.  This will be the subject of a future article.

Next, states can require the federal government to tender all payments in gold and silver.  The U.S. Constitution in Article 1 section 10 clearly states “No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…”[iv] The practical result of returning to this constitutional requirement will likely be the federal government ceasing to send any money to the states.  What an excellent day that would be! This would force states to budget and fix problems themselves without relying on federal handouts.  Another benefit will be ensuring state solvency even if the federal government goes bankrupt.  Lastly, it calls the bluff of the federal government.  You will recall in Part I of the plan the creation of a Federal Tax Escrow Account, which would offset this loss of money.  It will become immediately apparent which states send the federal government more money than they receive.

Step 4:  If State Legislatures Fail, Introduce the Laws through the Initiative Process

The people are the final check and balance because power is inherent in the people.  Many state legislatures will refuse to even hear the above ten bills when freedom-minded legislators introduce them.  Such was the case in my own state of Washington.  No matter.  In many states, the people have reserved for themselves the final power of legislation through the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Process.

Twenty-four states currently have an Initiative process. Check here for the process in your state. Since the legislation is already written, it only needs to be slightly modified to include the words “Be it enacted by the people of [your state].”  Grassroots activists should be mindful that the ballot title and summary for an Initiative is going to require an attorney.  Identify them now (yes Constitutional freedom-minded Attorneys exist like Stephen Pidgeon of Everett, Washington).

Next, activists should contact all freedom groups and bring them together into one network on the Internet.  Remember that the Internet is to the state sovereignty movement what the printing press was to the Bible.  This is not centralized control but merely a way to quickly transmit to, and share information with, thousands of like-minded people.  For example, in Washington such a network called the “Liberty Groups” has started a state sovereignty initiative drive and website, Freedom Initiatives, and continues to share information and coordinate on many issues.  This is not about who leads what. Such squabbles must quickly give way to the overarching mission of restoring our Constitutional Republic. This is also not a Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party, or Democrat “thing” but a “we the people” reclaiming our country “thing.”

Before I move on, I want to address a couple of arguments that are typically raised by people who oppose the use of the Initiative process.  The arguments usually fall along three lines and I will answer each in turn:

1)      Direct Democracy is a dangerous thing and usually comes back around to bite you in the tail. This ignores the people as the final check and balance in our system. Furthermore, I believe we must exhaust all possible remedies at our disposal due to the urgency of the current situation.

2)      If the Initiative fails, practically speaking, it is impossible to bring the issue up again even decades later. This assumes we have decades.  The many experts I have read and talked to give our Constitutional Republic 6-10 years in a best-case scenario[v] and 6 months to 2 years worst case scenario.[vi] Now is the time to draw a line in the sand…our backs are against the wall.

3)      It wastes precious time and resources. This assumes an initiative will fail and also ignores the benefit of being able to educate voters through the Initiative process while simultaneously galvanizing a core grass roots team.  It also allows you to hold elected officials accountable by asking them point-blank “do you support the Initiative to nullify Nationalized Health Care?”

Step 5:  Contact all County Sheriffs and get them to commit to keep their oaths.

As described in Part I the whole principle of a Sheriff’s First bill is that no one is above the law…including federal agents.[vii] Federal agents will claim they “have the authority, period.” This begs a great question.  How will a law passed at the federal level be enforced locally?  The answer in almost every scenario involves the county Sheriff.  This is the Achilles Heel of almost all current federal schemes to socialize our economy. That is also why in most states ‘Task Forces” have been established to coordinate federal, state, and local law enforcement.  If all politics is local…it can fairly be said that so is all enforcement of criminal and civil penalties.

Consequently, the laws we have are only as good as those officers that enforce them at the local level.  Thus, the rise of tyranny must first come through both the United States Military and the County Sheriff.  And this can only happen if those same people violate their oaths to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and their own State’s Constitution.  As discussed in Part I, the county Sheriff is the primary (chief) law enforcement officer in the United States.   Therefore, if you are an interested activist, you should make a personal visit to your County Sheriff.  Here are some ideas for your visit:

1. Ask if your Sheriff will become an Oath Keeper.  Oath Keepers is a nonprofit organization started by Stewart Rhodes (attorney and Army veteran) which advocates that its members (current and former military and law enforcement) uphold the Constitution of the United States should they be ordered to violate it.
2. Invite your Sheriff to publicly reaffirm his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and your respective state.
3. Give your Sheriff a copy of former Sheriff Richard Mack’s book The County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope.
4. Ask your Sheriff if he has a local “Safety Committee” or similar group, which is the modern day version of a posse and what the requirements are to join.[viii] Become engaged with the local Sheriff’s office, it will help them with critical manpower needs and, it will give you an opportunity to try and influence this critical link in our governmental chain.

Summary

5 Steps

1. Reclaim State Sovereignty through key Nullification Legislation
2. Erect an Impenetrable Barrier around the 2^nd Amendment and the County Sheriff
3. Restore Sound and Honest Money
4. Introduce 10^th Amendment Initiatives
5. Help your Sheriff become an Oath Keeper

10 Bills

1. State Sovereignty Resolution
2. Health Care Freedom Act
3. Energy Freedom Act
4. Right to Constitutional Government Act
5. Federal Tax Escrow Account
6. Fire Arms Freedom Act
7. Right to Protection Act
8. Sheriff First Act
9. Sound Money Resolution
10. Legal Tender Act

There are many other ideas out there but we believed these would be quickest way to restore our Constitutional Republic.  This is not to say that securing our borders, state enforcement of immigration laws, repealing the 17^th Amendment, eliminating 501(c)(3) for churches, reforming the elections process, restraining the courts, or restoring grand jury presentments are not important and worthy goals.  But the legislation as outlined above is the immediate priority.  To be clear, Legislation alone is not the answer nor do we need to change the face of our national government to change the direction of our country.     Ultimately the survival of our Constitutional Republic depends on the people.  It depends on the courage and boldness of each one of us.  It depends on each one of us answering “everything” to the question “what am I willing to sacrifice for freedom?” The fight for freedom is ultimately a matter of the heart before it is a county or state movement.  And so I pray you will help restore our Constitutional Republic so that our children and grandchildren may inherit, as we did, the blessings of liberty and freedom.

Matthew Shea [send him email] is a State Representative in Washington’s 4th District. He’s the author of HJM4009 for State Sovereignty.  Visit his website.

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

[ii] In a letter dated February 10, 2010, Idaho’s Attorney General Lawrence G. Wasden wrote: “It is simply not within the Idaho Attorney General’s or the Idaho Legislature’s authority to declare federal laws null and void; that authority lies exclusively with the Supreme Court of the United States and the federal courts created by Congress.”  Notably, Mr. Wasden cites no authority for this proposition.

[iii] The Federal Monetary System was established in 1792 with the creation of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia. The first American coins were struck in 1793. The U.S. Coinage Act of 1792, consistent with the Constitution, provided for a U.S. Mint, which stamped silver and gold coins. The importance of this Act cannot be stressed enough.  The Act invoked the death penalty for anyone found to be debasing money.  President George Washington also mentions the importance of the national currency backed by gold and silver throughout his initial term of office and he contributed his own silver for the initial coins minted. The purchase of The US Mint in Philadelphia was the first money appropriated by Congress for a building to be used for a public purpose. It was purchased for a total of $4,266.67 on July 18, 1792.

A dollar was originally defined as 371.25 grains (troy) of fine silver.  Our entire monetary system was based proportionally off this measurement.  This has been changed since.

[v] Business Week posts an optimistic report in “Housing: The Roof Won’t Collapse On The U.S. Economy”

Art Laffer in the WSJ predicts 2011, “Tax hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse” and Peter Schiff paints an equally gloomy picture in “The Phantom Recovery”

[vii] Some have claimed that a Sheriff First law prevents federal agents from arresting terrorists and/or would hamper their ability to do so.  This is absurd for many reasons not the least of which is the Task Force example given.  Federal agents are already working with county Sheriffs and getting permission would not “stall” an operation.  However, a clause clarifying this should be added to any Sheriff First bill so that the issue is crystal clear.   Also, tying this legislation to the enforcement of a specific bill like Nationalized Health Care would remove this objection.

[viii] Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, is a leader in the country on the formation of a modern day “posse.”

This summer, legislators from several states met to discuss the steps needed to restore our Constitutional Republic. The federal government has ignored the many state sovereignty resolutions from 2009 notifying it to cease and desist its current and continued overreach. The group decided it was time to actively counter the tyranny emanating from Washington D.C.

From those discussions it became clear three things needed to happen.

1. State Legislatures need to pass 10 key pieces of legislation “with teeth” to put the federal government back in its place.
2. The people must pass the legislation through the Initiative process if any piece of the legislative agenda fails.
3. County Sheriffs must reaffirm and uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

With the advent of the Tea Party Movement, many people have been asking how exactly we can make the above reality. What follows is Part I of the outline of that plan regarding state legislation, the action steps any concerned citizen can take to see this legislation to fruition, and the brief history and justifications behind each.

Step 1: Reclaim State Sovereignty through Key Nullification Legislation

Our Constitutional Republic is founded on a system of checks and balances known as the “separation of powers.” Rarely, however, are the states considered part of this essential principle.

Enter the “doctrine of nullification.”

Nullification is based on the simple principle that the federal government cannot be the final arbiter of the extent and boundaries of its own power. This includes all branches of the federal government. In the law this is known as a “conflict of interest.”

Additionally, since the states created the federal government the federal government was an agent of the states; not the other way around. Thus, Thomas Jefferson believed that, by extension, the states had a natural right to nullify (render as of no effect) any laws they believed were unconstitutional.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 he wrote,

“co-States, recurring to their natural right…will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.”1

Alexander Hamilton echoed this sentiment in Federalist #85 “We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” 2

It is clear then that State Legislatures can stop the unconstitutional overreach of the Obama administration through nullification. Here is a list of proposed nullification legislation to introduce in all 50 States.

1. Nullification of Socialized Health Care [current efforts] [example legislation]
2. Nullification of National Cap and Trade [example legislation]
3. Federal Enumerated Powers Requirement (Blanket Nullification) [details]
4. Establishment of a Federal Tax Escrow Account [example legislation]

If imposed, socialized health care and cap and trade will crush our economy. These programs are both unconstitutional, creating government powers beyond those enumerated by the Constitution. If those programs are nullified, it will give the individual states a fighting chance to detach from a federal budget in freefall and save the economies of the individual states.

Next, blanket nullification.

The Federal Government, particularly the House of Representatives, needs to abide by its own rules. In particular, House Rule XIII 3(d) specifically states that:

“Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or resolution.” 3

Needless to say, this rule is generally ignored. The idea behind blanket nullification is that if the Congress does not specify the enumerated power it is using according to its own rules, or the power specified is not one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the United States Constitution, then the “law” is automatically null and void.

Lastly, the federal government cannot survive without money. I know that seems obvious but many states are missing the opportunity to use money as an incentive for the federal government to return to its proper role. Most visibly, states help collect the federal portion of the gasoline tax. That money should be put into an escrow account at the state level and held there. The Escrow Account legislation includes a provision that all consumer, excise, and income taxes payable to the federal government would go through this account first. This would do two things. First, it would give states the ability to collect interest on that money to help offset revenue shortfalls. Second, it would allow states to hold that money as long as needed as an incentive for the federal government to return within the enumerated boundaries of its power.

Step 2:   Erect an impenetrable wall around the County Sheriff and the 2nd Amendment.

As recently stated in the famous Heller opinion by the United States Supreme Court, the right to bear arms “is an individual right protecting against both public and private violence” and “when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized they are better able to resist tyranny.” 4

Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment not only protects the right to self-defense but that right extends to defending oneself against tyranny. As with any historical attempt to establish a dictatorship weapons must be seized or severely regulated. 5

Here is a list of legislation to prevent this from happening, some of which has already been introduced in states around the country:

• Sheriff First [model legislation]
• Extension of the Castle Doctrine (right to protection) [sample legislation]
• Prohibition of Gun and Ammunition Tracking [see above]
• Firearms Freedom Act [current efforts] [model legislation]

The county Sheriff is the senior law enforcement officer both in terms of rank and legal authority in a county. This comes from a tradition of over 1000 years of Anglo-Saxon common law. Anglo-Saxon communities were typically organized into “shires” consisting of approximately 1000 people. 6

The chief law enforcement officer of the shire was the “reeve” or “reef.” Hence, the modern combination of the two words, as we know them today, “shire reef” or “Sheriff.” 7

Consequently, the Sheriff’s pre-eminent legal authority is well established. This was confirmed in Printz v. United States. 7    Justice Scalia quotes James Madison who wrote in Federalist 39:

“In the latter, 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.”9

Sheriff 1st legislation would formally declare that all federal agents and officers must give notice of, and seek permission before, any arrest, search, or seizure occurs. Thus, federal agents and officers seeking to enforce unconstitutional laws must go through the county Sheriff first.

Extending the castle doctrine to one’s person would go a long way toward eliminating the arbitrary “no carry” areas. Like Virginia Tech, it is these areas where guns for self-defense are most needed.

Many gun and ammunition tracking schemes have been, and are still being, attempted. The intended purpose of “reducing gun related” crime is never realized. Instead, law-abiding citizens are punished with regulatory burdens and fees. Quite simply we need transparency in government not in the people.

Montana started the firearms freedom act to rein in the federal government’s use of the Commerce Clause to regulate everything within the stream of commerce. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate commerce between states not within states as Professor Rob Natelson points out in his 2007 Montana Law Review article.10

The Montana FFA simply returns to that original understanding regarding firearms made, sold, and kept within a state’s borders.

This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it does contain some immediate steps that can be taken toward freedom and restoring our God honoring Constitutional Republic. Hitler’s laws of January 30 and February 14, 1934, should serve as a stark reminder of what happens when state sovereignty is abolished.

In the coming few weeks I will publish the next part of the plan.

Matthew Shea [send him email] is a State Representative in Washington’s 4th District. He’s the author of HJM4009 for State Sovereignty.  Visit his website.

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

NOTES:

Last November, I wrote an update entitled, “Preparing for an Expansion of Government.” In that update, I referenced how that over time, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, both parties have used the expansion of federal government as a tool to accomplish their various agendas and in doing so violated the important concept of states’ rights.

I also wrote about the possible upcoming expansion in the size and scope of the federal government due to the recent consolidation of liberal control over both the presidency and Congress.

Since that time, I have been contacted by a number of worried constituents who are desperate to know what can be done. They have contacted their U.S. Senators and Congressman but are terrified because with vote after vote, the U.S. Congress seems to be moving towards implementing a frightening new socialist agenda. They want their Oklahoma lawmakers to do whatever we can to stop this agenda.

I believe these types of calls and e-mails are also being placed and sent to other Oklahoma Representatives and I predict that next year there will be a significant number of 10th amendment/states’ rights legislative initiatives filed by Oklahoma legislators.

Several Representatives are considering filing a bill tailored after a measure that was signed into law in Montana earlier this year that seeks to keep the federal government from regulating the production and sale of firearms.

Traditionally, the federal government has regulated this industry through the “Commerce Clause” in the constitution. However, the Montana law seeks to provide a means by which the producers and users of the firearms can clearly document that the product in question was made in Montana and is thus not subject to federal regulation.

This type of creative concept can likely be expanded into other areas of policy ranging from health care to energy. For instance, Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming have all considered proposals to take preemptive action against the pending federal mandates tied to the ongoing socialization of health care efforts by Congress.

The Arizona Legislature has passed a resolution that will allow the people of Arizona to vote on amending the state constitution to codify that no resident would be required to participate in any public health care option.

As more and more of the important votes are being lost at the federal level, the fight will move to the state level and the question before our legislative leadership and the Governor will be about whether or not they will allow important states’ rights legislation to go forward.

It is vital that we move forward quickly with this legislation before the federal judiciary is stocked with liberal appointees who will rule against states’ rights and try to strike down these laws.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Legislature to advance a strong platform of states’ rights legislation in the upcoming session.

Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, represents House District 31, which encompasses all of Logan County and a portion of northern Edmond. Murphey also owns and operates WebTeks CMS. He may be reached via e-mail at jason.murphey@okhouse.gov.

There is so much frustration expressed by people when exploring the difficulties in reigning in Washington, D.C. and restoring a government which respects state sovereignty.  This article explores the issues and proposes a plan to force our representatives to do our will.

First, we must recognize and understand the structure of government.  The power within the legislative branch is not distributed equally among the legislators. 

Many people write their legislators, and in many cases, their voices are heard.  In other cases, their voices are lost.  While writing one’s legislator is a good, civic-minded idea, it is not enough.  The only way to prevail is to control your legislators.  To do that, you must know how they work.

Dinosaurs over State’s Rights

Here is an example of how our voices are lost.  Texas’ version of its state’s rights resolution is HCR50.  On April 23, 2009, HCR50 passed favorably out of the Committee on State Affairs, and it currently has enough votes to pass the House.  The problem is, however, that HCR50 is not progressing to a full vote, and even if it reaches a vote on the House floor, the legislative session will end before it can make it through the Texas Senate.

Despite the failure of HCR50’s promotion, we Texans can all rest assured that this failure reflects the many important things our legislators must do first in order to adequately represent us.  For example, on April 30, 2009, the Texas House took up the momentous measure of HCR16 – designating Paluxysaurus jonesi as our new state dinosaur!

So, there we have it.  Designating a state dinosaur takes precedence over reclaiming our state’s rights!  This is the case, even though Texas’ HCR50 has enough support among legislators to pass the House as soon as it is called for a vote.

Know the Power Structure

Not all legislators are equal.  When a bill is introduced, it is assigned to a committee.  A legislative body usually has several committees operating under different names and composed of different members.  It is important to know the particular committee to which a bill is assigned.

Committee Action

Before a bill will ever be submitted to a vote before the entire house, it must first pass committee.  The committee has a chairperson.  This is basically the leader of the committee.  The chairperson has control over the committee calendar.

From there, you can easily surmise that a committee chairperson can see to it that a bill in his or her committee will never see the light of day.

Assuming the bill passes muster (at the whim of the chairperson,) it will be scheduled for a hearing before the entire committee.  At this point, the focus is on the committee as a whole.  If a majority of committee members favors the bill, then the bill will be reported favorably by the committee, and it will be “eligible” to be voted on by the house.   This does not mean it will reach a full vote.  Keep reading.

So, at this point, you should be aware of the functions of the committee chairperson and the rest of the committee.  You should know who these people are.

There is an important caveat here.  Sometimes, committees will assign bills to subcommittees.  The process works similarly, except now, we have both a subcommittee chairperson and the subcommittee to pass favorably upon the bill before it will even be considered in the primary committee.  If a bill goes into subcommittee review, you should know the members of the subcommittee as well.

Once a Bill is Eligible for Floor Vote

Just because a bill is eligible for a floor vote does not mean it will reach a vote.  Each house has a calendars committee.  This committee is structured very much the same way as other committees.  It has a chairperson and other members.

The only difference is that the calendars committee decides when, and in what order, bills are considered on the open floor of the house.  Even if the calendars committee schedules a bill for vote, it can still insert other bills for consideration before it.  This can effectively kill a bill.  You should therefore know the members of the calendar committee.

The Floor Vote

Once the bill reaches a vote on the floor, it will either pass or not.  So, all of the communicating to legislators that most of us do will only have significance if the bill ever gets this far.  If it does not get this far (due to committee handling), then all the prior talking to your legislator is generally of no consequence.

Therefore, you can readily see that we must influence the committee members, especially the chairpersons, if we are to have our voices heard.

The Life of a Legislator

It is also important to understand the life of a legislator.  At the state level, legislators hold their positions part-time.  Legislators conduct state business only during legislative sessions, which, depending on the state, is conducted each year, or every other year.  Legislative sessions usually last only a few months.  So, that is when the work of the state is actually done.

The Will of a Legislator

Bills are often reported as “authored by” Representative Doe, when in fact, they usually are not.  To use an analogy, it is often said that judges of courts enter orders and judgment.  While “true,” the judges rarely write their own orders.  Instead, judges tell the attorney, in general terms, what they want an order to say.  At this point, the attorney drafts the order for the judge to sign.

Why is this?  Because judges are elected.  They are their own bosses.  If they do not have to do the work, they will not do it.  For them, it is much easier to have someone spoon-feed them the desired product, so that all they have to do is sign it.

Legislators work the same way.  Therefore, we must keep in mind that everything we want a legislator to do, we must do ourselves – with the ultimate goal to be that we will require little more than just a signature or “yes” vote by the legislator.  We must do all of the organizing, recruiting, drafting, etc.

The Plan that will Work

To a legislator, election votes are everything.  The only way to make a legislator do your will is to scare him or her.

It does not serve any purpose to focus blame on the wrong legislator, nor does it do any good to believe a legislator has more power than he or she does.  In other words, if a bill does not pass favorably out of the pertinent committee, you cannot rightfully blame your legislator, unless he or she was a member of the committee with enough influence to make sure the bill survived that committee’s process.

So, rule number one is to make sure we focus on scaring the right people for the right reasons.

Focus at the District Level

Let’s face it.  If a constituent lives in District 1, and the committee chair person lives in District 38, the odds are very slim that the committee chair will really care that much about the opinions of the constituent.  Therefore, to gain power, a movement must start with constituents at the district level.

For example, if a constituent in District 1 wants to influence a committee chairperson who represents District 38, the constituent needs to make contacts, friends and support groups from within the chairperson’s district.  This is the place where getting on the phone and making friends and allies is very important.

Many elections are won or lost within 10 percentage points.  Therefore, at the district level, small blocks of voters can be very, very important.

The influence that can be derived by small blocks of voters is so important that it often paves the way for what people label as “special interest groups.”  The phrase “special interest group” refers to a group that consists of much less than a majority of voters, but it also consists of enough voters to scare their legislator into furthering the group’s interest.

Groups can be easy to form and manage with today’s technology.  Simply using e-mail or tool such as Facebook and Meetup.com can be very effective at coordinating efforts across multiple districts on a state-wide basis.

How to Organize

Now that we know we must focus at the district level, we need to understand how to organize.  The organization is usually given a name.  “Texans for this” or “Texans for that,” or whatever.  The name is not as important as is the concept.  However, the name is very important in that it connotes a group of voters, and the “jingle” of the name is a regular “buzz” in the legislator’s ear.

So, we must start with a name.

What Name?

Who cares?   Often, the most well-conceived of movements will break-down over claims to authorship.  One person wants to do it this way, and another wants to do it that way.

It is important not to focus so much on “who gets to claim the credit in the end” as it is to focus on “in the end.”  So, we should not get bogged down in leadership claims and naming rights.  Just get past this issue of self-interest and get on-board with the program.

Find District Leaders

The next step is to locate a person within each district that shares in the desired goal and is someone you believe has a fair degree of leadership skills and a good work-ethic.  This is not intellectually difficult but does require some time commitment.

How can this be done?   First, you should know how to find out how districts are carved-out in your state.  For example, in the Texas House Representatives, there are 150 legislative districts.  It is not too difficult to use a search engine to find a web page that shows the location of these districts on a map.

In the Texas Senate, there are 31 districts.  This is an entirely different map, and so it should be understood that these districts overlap.

Therefore, in Texas, for example, we must find 150 district leaders to form groups within their districts to influence their respective representatives in the state house.  We must also find 31 district leaders to do the same as regards influencing their state senators.  Just as the districts overlap, so can the district leadership for a grass-roots campaign.

But I Don’t Know Anyone Clear Across the State to Contact

No problem.  The process can work from the inside out.  Often times, we know people who live nearby and who also live in a different district.  For example, if I live in District 38, and if District 39 is a few blocks over, I might likely know someone who can lead that district.

In the same vein, my friend in District 39 might know someone who can lead District 40, which is only a few miles from him or her.   In this way, the recruiting and organizing starts from the inside, and it grows wider, until the state is covered.

A Main Control Center

While the recruiting is going on and district-level groups are being set up, it is very important to have a group of people who are willing to take the time and organize the leadership structure.  This group needs to be responsible for keeping a roster of district leaders, along with their district numbers.  That way, they will know who to contact to monitor progress and receive feedback from that district.   The district leader should likewise keep a roster of the members of the group within his or her district.

With this roster in place, it will be easy to know which districts are still not represented and need to be the target of recruiting efforts.  The goal is to have enough constituents within a district become members or supporters of the platform that these constituents, as a group, have enough power to potentially sway election results.

Remember, at the district level, the group does not need to be very large.  To determine an effective size, all we need to do is look back at the most recent election results.  There, we can see how many people voted for a legislator within the district in question.  (Obviously, not all people vote, and this is why we look at just the number of how many people voted.)

For example, in Texas District 138, for the 2008 election, Dwayne Bohac defeated Virginia McDavid 21,666 to 15,052.  But according to the 2000 Census, the total population of District 138 is 134,167.  Of this number, 98,358 are of voting age (18 or over).

So, it is clear here that Rep. Bohac won by 6,614 votes, which represents only 6.7% of the voting populace for that district.  Had just over half of the margin, or 3,308 voters, gone the other way, the election results would have favored Virginia McDavid.  Therefore, only 3.36% of the people in the district could have swayed the election.  This number is “peanuts” when considering that District 138 is in Harris County, Texas, within Houston, which, as we know, is the fourth largest city in the nation.

And it should be highlighted further that election results are almost always uncertain.  Therefore, as election season draws near, we will find the relative paranoia level at its highest.  While, looking back, it can be seen that 3,308 voters could have affected the outcome in 2008 for District 138, who knows what it will be next time?  Therefore, it would not be surprising at all for a group of say, 100-200, to be enough to actually force their legislator to do his or her best to carry out a particular agenda.  And this is in a district with a total voting population of 98,358!

Make Your Purpose Clear!

This process is not for the timid. It must be clear to the district leaders that their job is to affect policy.  They must be ready to use the influence of their group to oust a representative who does not earnestly try and further the effort.  This must be communicated to the legislator.

Here is an example of how to communicate the plan:  “We have 437 people who have all signed a petition in support of Take Texas Back, which supports state’s rights.  Will you issue a statement supporting our effort?”

In most cases, if proof of this size group is shown to the legislator, or if the legislator otherwise believes that this group really exists in this size, the legislator’s “enthusiastic” support will be forthcoming.  (But recall, legislators don’t like to work.  They must be spoon-fed with the final product to either sign or vote “yes” on.)

If the legislator’s support is not forth-coming, grow the group, and use all of its influence to back an opponent who supports the cause!

Money is a nice tool, but in the end, it is all about votes.  Just get the votes!

In Summary

The State Sovereignty Movement can be won.  It is just a matter of manipulating the legislature, rather than counting on them to exercise common-sense.  If the only requirement was common-sense, Texas would already have formally reclaimed its sovereignty, and the “state dinosaur” would have just had to wait.

Therefore, we must force the legislators to do that which they will not.  It is easy, but it takes some time and organization.

I, for one, have tried communicating with legislators.  It is somewhat effective, but as is clear to me at this point (since HCR50 will not pass both the house and senate this session), talking to legislators is not enough.

It is time we start a grass-roots effort to control our legislature, rather than have them control us!

Jeff Matthews [send him email] is an attorney living in Houston, Texas.  His current projects include the website SovereignStates, and the forthcoming organization, The National Taxpayer Takeover.

“Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat… But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? … NO.”

When Robert Bolt wrote that truism in his play A Man For All Seasons, his protagonist, Thomas More, was attempting to persuade the jury at his trial for high treason that all governments have limitations, and that the statute he was accused of violating was beyond Parliament’s lawful authority to enact. Sir Thomas was there appealing to the natural law as well as to the common sense of his jurors: The government can’t change the laws of nature. As we know, he fared no better than those who today argue that Congress is not omnipotent, has natural, moral, and constitutional limitations on its power, and every day fails to abide them.

Jefferson wedded the natural law to American law in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that our rights are “inalienable” and come to us from “Our Creator.” Not only does federal law recognize that, but the whole American experience recognizes the natural law as the ultimate source of our freedoms and as a restraint on the government. Thus, the traditional panoply of American rights is ours by birthright and cannot be interfered with by an act of Congress or order of the president, but only after due process.

Two of those rights are speech and contract. A law enacted by Congress punishing speech (such as the Patriot Act provision that declares to be felonious speaking about the receipt of certain search warrants) is no law at all, since the law itself violates the natural right to speak freely, which is expressly protected in the Constitution. The Framers fully understood this as they wrote in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no laws … abridging the freedom of speech.” I have italicized the word the to make my point. The framers accepted the natural law premise that freedoms come with and from our humanity. The freedom of speech obviously preexisted the constitutional amendment insulating it from government abridgement, and the Framers’ use of the article the reflects their unmistakable acceptance of that truism.

Similarly, a law changing the terms of a private contract is no law since it violates the natural right to make binding agreements. The Framers knew that as well. The Constitution specifically forbids the states and, by requiring due process and expressly forbidding taking property without just compensation, the federal government, from “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” This, too, is a personal natural right that pre-existed the constitutional clauses that bar the government from interfering with it.

The Constitution sets forth just 17 discrete delegated powers on matters like currency, interstate commerce, the post office, the judiciary, and national defense. The Constitution also interposed two precise brakes on all federal powers: The Ninth and Tenth Amendments together state that the powers not enumerated in the Constitution as given to the federal government are retained by the people and the States.

The whole purpose of the Constitution is, was, and has been to define the government, to impose restraints on the government, and to guarantee personal freedoms. It specifically diffused power between the States and the central government and, within the federal government itself, it separated powers among the three branches.

It is elementary to state that the Constitution mandates that Congress writes the laws and decides how to spend tax dollars, the president enforces the laws as Congress has written them, and the courts interpret the laws as they have been written and enforced to assure their compliance with the Supreme Law of the Land.

As elemental as this sounds, it is hardly recognizable today. After 230 years, we have come to a point where a president declines to enforce laws he has himself signed, directs his Treasury Secretary to make laws interfering with private contracts, and signs executive orders that invade privacy, restrict speech, and appropriate property. Today, we have a Congress that delegates to the president its power to spend taxpayer dollars and money borrowed in the taxpayers’ names, has written laws regulating the air you breath, the water you drink, the words you speak, and relieving the persons with whom you have contracted or to whom you have loaned money from complying with their agreements. And our courts from time to time have raised taxes, run prisons, re-cast the boundaries of school districts, and declined to right obvious constitutional wrongs committed by the other branches.

The oath to uphold the Constitution that everyone in government takes, though solemnly delivered and publicly sworn to, like an oath to tell the truth in Court, is simply not taken seriously. Notwithstanding the plain language of specific grants and general restraints, notwithstanding a careful compromise between the Hamiltonians who wanted all power to be in the federal government and the Jeffersonians who wanted all power in the States, and notwithstanding our inalienable rights from our Creator, the federal government today simply recognizes no limits on its power.

But the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. We will have chaos if those in whose hands we repose it for safekeeping intentionally violate it with impunity. A government that violates its supreme law becomes arbitrary, and arbitrary rule becomes authoritarian, and authoritarian rule will trample our freedoms. Just six weeks into its four-year term, the Obama administration and its allies in Congress, just like the Bush administration and its allies, have acted like they never heard of the Constitution. They have attempted to control salaries of private banks, change the terms of private mortgages, enter the marketplace by nationalizing banks and the world’s largest insurer, and investing taxpayer dollars in companies whose products consumers reject and investors eschew. This is theft of liberty and theft of taxpayer property.

Is freedom a reality or a myth? Are the rights guaranteed in the Constitution real or just a pretense? Isn’t the whole purpose of government in a free society to uphold rights rather than interfere with them? If the answers to these questions are no longer obvious, it is because we have a central government whose only self-acknowledged limitation is whatever it can get away with.

Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], who was on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His newest book is Dred Scott’s Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America, (Nelson, 2009) His previous books are A Nation of Sheep, The Constitution in Exile and Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws.

Copyright © 2009 Andrew P. Napolitano

I thought so myself. That is until I found out that this bill died. It is called the Enumerated Powers Act, so named because it refers to the 10th Amendment which limits the federal government’s powers to things specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

It states:

“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.”

This bill would require congress to list the constitutional authority for each bill brought forward to become a law. It makes sense to me. If you want to pass a bill you should know by what authority you are doing so.

The problem is that this bill has been proposed by Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ) since 1995, and it has yet to come up for a vote. This last year it finally had 53 co-sponsors in the House and finally saw the senate floor thanks to Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). But despite being the most obvious law ever it hasn’t made it anywhere. It’s been killed.

I am convinced that this bill keeps being relegated to eternal committee because no one knows about it. If we push our legislators to advance it then it will pass. It is up to us. Our own government has successfully hidden this issue for too long. Open people’s eyes please. Draw some attention to this bill and to what our representatives are doing.

There is a great article about the entire issue at the great Heritage Foundation website. You can find out what happened to the bill here. Check it out and see if your representative signed on to it. I haven’t completely vetted this site, but on the surface it looks great, and has already begun the campaign to bring this issue to a vote.

Dr. Christopher Duncan is a Christian, a Chiropractor, and an American. Visit his blog at http://heldtongue.blogspot.com

Recently Congress passed the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act., also known as the Housing Bill.  Its passage was lauded by many who are legitimately concerned about foreclosures and the housing market in our country’s economy.  I was asked how I could vote against a bill to help American homeowners, but I found this bill to have more to do with helping big banks than helping average Americans.

The answer is that there is more to any bill than its name or the headlines surrounding it.  If one only paid attention to bill titles, one could happily vote for almost any bill put to a vote on the floor.  Titles do not tell the complete story of a bill’s provisions, and many titles are downright deceptive and come close to emotional blackmail of legislators.

But we cannot afford to be fooled by fancy titles. 

The housing bill could perhaps be more aptly named The Big Banking Bailout at Taxpayer Expense Act as large sections of it were written by big banking lobbyists according to Evans and Novak reporter Tim Carney’s Capitol Hill sources.  At least that title would be honest.

Also, many of these magnanimous sounding foreign aid bills and so-called human rights resolutions have counterproductive and hypocritical language tucked into the fine print. The recent bill on China was a good example.  This resolution calls on China to hold meetings with the Dalai Lama without preconditions, when that is something our own government will not do with Iran.

How our government has the authority to tell China what to do it beyond me, especially when we demand something so hypocritical.  On foreign aid bills and legislation that on the surface seems very charitable, upon closer examination we find strings attached and a lot of manipulation of the marketplace.  Many times, these bills purport to help the destitute, but actually help multinational corporations or prop up dictators that might otherwise be deposed by their people.

The other point to take into consideration on legislation and House resolutions is that intentions are not enough.  It is not enough to want to solve a problem with legislation, and name a bill to that effect.  The crafters of the legislation need to demonstrate a clear and honest understanding of the problem, in order to put forward a realistic strategy to solving it.

Too many times, I just don’t see that.  Instead I see more taxes, more restrictions, more violations of the Constitution, and more unintended consequences.

One shouldn’t judge legislation based on titles, good intentions, or what someone says the bill will do.  Imagine if all the legislation in the history of this country actually did what the title of the bills proclaimed they would do.

How very different this country would be!  There would be no poverty, no drugs, no crime.  In fact if it was that easy, Congress by now would have probably repealed the law of gravity, and supply and demand as well, and replaced them with unlimited wealth and given all Americans the power of flight.  What a fanciful world our legislators live in at times!

Though I am at times accused of being mean-spirited regarding the many bills I vote against, I don’t so much think of my vote as against the legislation, as much as FOR the Constitution, according to my duties as a Congressman.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

One Christmas tradition Congress could do without is the broken process of passing the annual Omnibus Spending Bill, which we recently did right before the holiday recess.

Every December Congress fights and argues over spending and never seems to be able to pass the necessary appropriations until the very last minute.  There is panic and threats of government shut downs and reduction in essential services.  And they always threaten the essential services, as if there is no waste they could possibly eliminate instead. 

This past December, right on cue, the administration warned about dire civilian defense department layoffs if the money didn’t come soon.

And so at the very last minute the Omnibus was rushed through in a whirlwind, just in time to save the day.  Members of Congress had less than 24 hours to read the nearly 3,500 page bill before a vote was taken.  The bill was supposedly much too important to waste time reading it.

I feel differently.  I feel the important bills are the ones we should take especial care to closely examine.

However, we are led to believe that if the Omnibus bill failed, horrible things would have happened.  But the situation is a setup that ensures our government spending balloons every year just as the elites and special interests dictate.  The vast majority of Members of Congress don’t actually know what the money is being spent on until after passage and by then it is too late.

To address this flawed and corruptible process I have proposed a very simple change called the Sunlight Rule, which mandates that bills be presented to Congress and staff for review in their final form no less than 10 days before they come to the floor for a vote.  This would allow the representatives of the American people time to read the bills before having to make a decision on them.  Every now and then you hear criticisms of congressmen and women for not reading the bills.  That is a problem, however in cases like the Omnibus spending bills, a few hours is not nearly enough time to comb through and evaluate the hundreds of pages they contain.  The rules do not currently specify any amount of time that must be allotted for Congress to read or deliberate any legislation before a vote.  That needs to change.

Congress should read the bills.  But to do that requires an appropriate amount of time.  More appropriately phrased, Congress should be ALLOWED to read the bills.  And no member of Congress should, in good conscience, vote affirmatively on a bill they haven’t fully analyzed.

I am hoping that in the New Year more of my colleagues will resolve to take a stand for honesty and due diligence in representing the people of this country and that we can enact the Sunlight Rule.  With it, we will be a wiser, more open Congress and our decisions in Washington will be more deliberative and fully informed as they ought to be.