“The several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government.”
–Thomas Jefferson

Today, voters in Missouri helped bring the Jeffersonian principle of Nullification one step closer to the mainstream by approving Proposition C – the Health Care Freedom Act.

The new Missouri statute is nearly identical to Virginia’s Health Care Freedom Act – which is being defended by Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli, and was given the green light to proceed in court by a Federal Judge this week. The Missouri proposition passed the Senate on May 4th by a 26-8 vote, and the House on May 11th by 108-47 vote. Today, voters approved Prop C by a wide margin – early returns showed over 75% in favor.

The legislation provides that:

No law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.

and

A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required by law or rule to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required by law or rule to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

NULLIFICATION

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state’s citizens.

Early nullification movements began with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that the people of the states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds – to the point of ignoring federal laws.

Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.

Nullification was regularly called upon by states all over the country in response to everything from higher taxes to the fugitive slave law of 1850.

A MODERN NULLIFICATION MOVEMENT

Besides the Health Care legislation passed in Missouri, activists and state-legislators are pushing forward with nullification efforts all across the country – and it spans the political spectrum.

Virginia, Idaho, Louisiana and Utah have already passed their own Health Care Freedom Acts. Voters in Arizona and Oklahoma will vote to choose if they want to do the same in November.

Eight states have already passed Firearms Freedom Acts to nullify some federal gun laws and regulations within their states.

Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances.

And Massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law virtually null and void in most of the country.

THE BLUEPRINT

Supporters of these modern nullification efforts look to the successful rebellion by states against the Bush-era Real ID Act.

In early 2007, Maine and then Utah passed resolutions refusing to implement the federal Real ID act on grounds that the law was unconstitutional. Well-over a dozen other states followed suit in passing legislation opposing Real ID. Since then, a total of 25 states have passed laws or resolutions defying the federal law.

Instead of attempting to force the law to implementation, the federal government delayed implementation not once, but twice. And in June of 2009, the Obama administration, recognizing the insurmountable task of enforcing a law in the face of such broad resistance, announced that it was looking to “repeal and replace” the controversial law. At the end of last year, they “delayed implementation” of the law yet a third time.

Supporters see this as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.

THE LESSON

Whether the issue is healthcare mandates, national id cards, or marijuana – the bottom line is straightforward. When enough people refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal laws, and enough states stand with them through legislation nullifying those same laws – there’s not much that D.C. can do in response.

20+ States resisting DC can do what calling, marching, yelling, faxing, and emailing has almost never done. Stop the feds dead in their tracks.

Thus, the real way to resist DC is not by begging politicians and judges in Washington to allow us to exercise our rights…it’s to exercise our rights whether they want to give us “permission” to or not. Nullification – state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws – is the way forward.

**********

NOTE: If you’re interested in helping the momentum of the 10th Amendment/Nullification movement, please support our new event tour, Nullify Now! – with initial stops in Ft. Worth, Orlando, Chattanooga and Phoenix. Just click the banner below for more information.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Health Care Freedom Act legislative tracking page

The Tenth Amendment Center has released the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, which directly nullifies the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” on a state level. Click here to learn more.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

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

In response to what some opponents see as a Congress that doesn’t represent their interests, State Legislators are looking to the nearly forgotten American political tradition of nullification as a way to reject any potential national health care program that may be coming from Washington.

In 2010, residents of Arizona will be voting on a State Constitutional Amendment that would let them effectively opt out of any proposed national health care plan.  Legislatures in Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are also considering similar State Constitutional Amendments.

And now, Missouri is joining them. According to a report in The Missourian, “Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O’Fallon, pre-filed a bill Dec. 1 that, if approved by voters, would effectively put a halt on any national health care legislation. Davis said her intent was to give voters a way to protect themselves.”

FREEDOM TO PARTICIPATE

The bill, HJR48, “Proposes a constitutional amendment which would prohibit compelling a person to participate in any health care system.”

It states:

“To preserve the freedom of citizens of this state to provide for their health care, no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly or through penalties or fines, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services. Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.”

NULLIFICATION: A HISTORY LESSON

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Early nullification movements began with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that the people of the states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds – to the point of ignoring federal laws.

Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.

Nullification was regularly called upon by states all over the country in response to everything from higher taxes to the fugitive slave law of 1850.

A MODERN NULLIFICATION MOVEMENT

Besides the Health Care legislation in Arizona, activists and state-legislators are pushing forward with nullification efforts all across the country – and it spans the political spectrum.

Thirteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. Massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void. And, two states, Montana and Tennessee, have already passed laws nullifying federal gun laws and regulations within their states.

HOWEVER WE CHOOSE

“We (Missourians) don’t like it when people try to take away our freedom,” Davis told The Missoulian. “We will maintain the right to purchase health care however we chose. This national health care debate is not about health care as much as it is about redistribution of the wealth. This resolution allows voters to say don’t redistribute our wealth here in Missouri.”

George Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers, in an interview with the Atlanta Business Chronicle said, “Proposals to deny or limit access to the purchase of private health care are simply unacceptable. Our basic freedoms are at risk with the government-run health care proposals coming out of Washington.” Legislators from Georgia recently announced that they would be introducing a similar resolution in 2010.

REAL ID AS THE BLUEPRINT?

Supporters of modern nullification efforts look to the successful rebellion by states against the Bush-era Real ID Act.

In early 2007, Maine and then Utah passed resolutions refusing to implement the federal Real ID act on grounds that the law was unconstitutional. Well-over a dozen other states followed suit in passing legislation opposing Real ID.

Instead of attempting to force the law to implementation, the federal government delayed implementation not once, but twice. And in June of this year, the Obama administration, recognizing the insurmountable task of enforcing a law in the face of such broad resistance, announced that it was looking to “repeal and replace” the controversial law.

Supporters see this as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution. Some say that each successful state-level resistance to federal programs will only embolden others to try the same – resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

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

Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis has introduced the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB1230) – prefiled for the 2010 legislative session. The bill “Asserts the right of the State of Missouri to regulate the intrastate use and acquisition of certain firearms pursuant to the reserved powers of the state over intrastate commerce and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

While the bill’s title focuses solely federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s mandate that powers not delegated to the federal government are “reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.” It states:

Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Missouri certain powers as they were understood at the time that Missouri was admitted to statehood. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Missouri and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Missouri and the United State

Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Missouri was admitted to statehood, and the guarantee of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Missouri and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Missouri and the United States

Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Firearms Freedom Acts have already passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and have been introduced in a number of other states around the country. (Click here to see the full list)

There’s been no lack of controversy surrounding these laws, either. The Tenth Amendment Center recently reported on the ATF’s position that such laws don’t matter:

The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:

“Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.”

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”

Advocates of these efforts say it doesn’t matter if the federal government disagrees, or even threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma. Gary Marbut, author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, and founder of FirearmsFreedomAct.com took this position in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center:

“We’re not depending on permission from federal judges to be able to effectuate our state-made guns bills. And, we’re working on other strategies to wrest essential and effective power from the federal government and put it where it belongs.“

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

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

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Thirteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law virtually null and void.

While some advocates concede that a federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.

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

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

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

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

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

It is federal, because it is the government of States united in a political union, in contradistinction to a government of individuals, that is, by what is usually called, a social compact.To express it more concisely, it is federal and not national because it is the government of a community of States, and not the government of a single State or Nation.
–John C. Calhoun

Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, a group of men from states with different ideas and strengths convened to design a new form of civil government. Federalism emerged as the compact that became the U.S. Constitution. Federalism provided the protection of a central government while protecting the individualism and creativity of each state.

Delegates from the colonies engaged in lengthy debate and settled on what powers they would relinquish to a central government. Everything else they left to the states to decide and govern separately.

The 10th Amendment became the codification of such an understanding: “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.”

Federalism was the ideal model for improvement because it acknowledged each state as a laboratory of ideas. No state had a monopoly on good public policy. States retained autonomy over education, business, religion, over how to address healthcare or poverty.

None of these issues were debated to consensus as a part of the Compact, so the federation was granted no power over them. Such a system of government fosters experimentation and change. It is the governing structure of entrepreneurs, pioneers, and idealists.

A national government, on the other hand is the opposite of federalism. It reduces statehood to geography and fosters political posturing and prejudice. Such a governing structure is designed to protect and promote the status quo.

It is by nature a hindrance to change because there are no “state-laboratories,” no places to test new ideas or debunk old ones. Once nationalized, public policy becomes the best by default, not by performance.

Washington D.C. is actively indoctrinating America away from federalism and toward a nationalistic government – one size fits all. We must not stand idly by and allow Missouri to be swept up into failed public policies against our will just because a political elite demands that we conform.

America did not begin as a nation of conformists, nor will it survive as such.

America’s exceptionalism is rooted in individualism and the free flow of competing ideas, not in the genius of a monarch. As Missourians and Americans we must remember our roots, actively defend our Constitution(s), and promote Missouri ideas via our state legislative process. I believe Missourians do not want California, New York, or Chicago deciding our policies or our fate.

The “Mighty” 10th and the Enumerated Powers Acts

When it was written, the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment was the last line drawn in the sand against an oppressive central government.  It was the Bill of Rights’ final amendment, as if our Founding Fathers said, “By the grace of God, if the first nine amendments don’t prevent tyranny, the 10th will do so.”  Here’s what the Mighty 10th tells us:

“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.”

Our Founding Fathers – specifically Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Patrick Henry – demanded the original Constitution provide for a legal means of bringing finality of any government’s legitimacy directly back into the hands of the people at large whenever the people so desired. 

The framers broke the Mighty 10th into two actionable lines of defense against a King George government:

1) the states (“powers…are reserved to the States respectively…”), and
2) the people (“powers…are reserved…to the people.”)

Number one is systematic and orderly.  Number two, unfortunately, could get ugly, especially if the 2nd Amendment is put into play.  Let’s stick with number one for now.

Though the 10th Amendment is entrenched in the Constitution, forcing its application has become a burden of the states themselves.  Clearly the federal government has not only ignored the Mighty 10th, it will undoubtedly fight vehemently any attempt to enforce it.  After all, most politicians have massive egos and aren’t inclined to voluntarily shed themselves of power; this includes most federal judges.

So the battle that is now just commencing will be long and hard.  Any legal foundational help will be welcome.  That help could come from what is referred to as the Enumerated Powers Acts (HR450 and S1319) currently in congressional committee.  The House bill was introduced by Arizona’s John Shadegg and the Senate sister by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Here’s what the Acts require:

“…each Act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act.”

This means any Congressman who wants to introduce a bill must first flip through the Constitution and find the provision “enumerated” in its pages that gives the Congressman the right to introduce all elements of the bill.  Without the identified “power,” guess what?

The Heritage Foundation points out what happens if the Enumerated Powers Acts were adopted.  “Every bill would be an opportunity for Americans to think seriously about our constitutional order, the wisdom of its design, and the consequences of departing from its strictures.”

Granted, S1319 and HR450 are stuck in committee in this liberal current Congress and will never see the light of the floor.  However, the mere existence of the Acts awaiting a vote could well provide a huge leverage on whether politicians agree with it in concept and significance.

Thus the underpinning of the Pincer Movement: from the state (the Mighty 10th) and from federal (the Acts).

The Missouri Sovereignty Project, for example, is engaged in this strategy right now.  The Project is contacting elected officials, both state and Missouri congressional, and asking them to sign pledges to agree in principle and to uphold and abide by both the 10th Amendment and the Enumerated Powers Acts.

Forcing current and campaigning public officials to take a principled and public stand (yea or nay) on the 10th Amendment and the Acts will flush officials out into the open about their dedication to the very document they swore to uphold.  The Project believes politicians will be sweaty around the collar about the notion of thumbing their noses at to the Constitution, on either front.

As one might expect, the Missouri Sovereignty Project will compile lists, which will become part of the public domain through blogs, prints and broadcast media inside the state.

The Missouri Sovereignty Project is only a month old and already has a growing number of dedicated members.  Unlike many movements across the country, the Project is not a social group.  It has an explicit charter, has already sent out two press releases, and has a membership group that is organized, by each member’s choice, on three levels:

1) those who spread the word,

2) those who monitor, call and write public officials,

3) those who organize and manage.

The geographic grassroots goal of the Missouri Sovereignty Project is to have a Level 2 or Level 3 member in each of the 163 state House districts, which would overlap the state Senate districts and the Congressional districts.

The group expects to be completely in place, up and running across all state districts by March of 2010, just in time for elections.  This network will continually monitor and contact any public official that strays from their pledge.

Thomas Grady is the founder of the Missouri Sovereignty Project.

By a vote of 32-0 the State Senate has approved HB 361 – legislation that would have Missouri join a dozen other states in rejecting the federal government REAL ID Act of 2005 requiring states to conform to a federal standard for driver’s licenses or identification cards. Having previously been approved by the House, the bill now goes to Governor Jay Nixon.

The federal Real ID Act, passed in 2005, requires states to collect and verify certain information about applicants for driver’s licenses and state ID cards. It was passed in response to national security concerns after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Opponents of REAL ID express privacy and constitutional concerns. During Senate debate the question of federal government motive was also raised. Senator Gary Nodler (R-Joplin) suggested federal lawmakers lack the courage to anger those with constitutional concerns, so they are forcing the states to do what Congress refuses to do.

“You back door rather than to directly, frontally confront the issue,” said Nodler. “Of whether we should have a national ID card.”

If the governor signs the legislation, Missouri would join 12 other states that have enacted similar anti-Real ID laws.

“That’s a pretty strong statement right there that the federal government should back off,” said Rep. Jim Guest, R-King City, who has sponsored the measure for several years.

States were originally given until May 2008 to comply with the law, but widespread resistance resulted in the Federal Government changing that deadline not once, but twice.

Currently, state have until the end of this year to meet the federal requirements but could get an extension until May 2011.  The Obama Administration has indicated, however, that the implementation date could be delayed.

At that time, citizens in noncompliant states would not be able to board federally regulated planes or enter federal buildings simply by showing their state driver’s licenses.

Some Missouri senators said they think the effective date will be pushed back to 2015 and that federal officials might not even implement the law.

“They are finding out that this is not the great program that the federal government deemed it was,” said Sen. Chuck Purgason, R-Caulfield.