Posted on 08/19/2010 4:46:30 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
In the face of the growing behemoth known as the American federal government, states and individual citizens are rediscovering the Tenth Amendment as a defense against tyrannical and unconstitutional measures taken by the fed. Recalling the power assigned to the states by the Founding Fathers, the term “state nullification” has begun to creep back into the American vocabulary as a defense mechanism against this growing Leviathan, even featured as a topic of discussion on Judge Napolitano’s new show Freedom Watch, which aired on August 7 on the Fox Business Network.
In an effort to promote the concept of state nullification, the Tenth Amendment Center and WeRefuse.com have launched Nullify Now!, a speaking tour that has been dubbed “your ticket to freedom.”
Set to take place on September 4 in Ft. Worth, Texas, October 10 in Orlando, Florida, October 23 in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and concluding on January 29, 2011 in Phoenix, Arizona, the speaking tour will feature a variety of knowledgeable speakers, including New York Times best-selling author Thomas E. Woods, author of Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21 Century, Jim Babka of DownsizeDC, and Jack Hunter, radio personality and columnist. Joe Wolverton II, a Constitutional lawyer and professor of American government who writes for The New American, will be speaking at the "Nullify Now" event in Chattanooga on October 23.
Sponsors of the speaking tour include Campaign for Liberty, Young Americans for Liberty, and The John Birch Society. Additionally, organizations like Don't Tread on Me: Rise of the Republic, Liberty Pulse, and The New American magazine are national supporters of Nullify Now!
According to its website, “Nullify Now! Is a multi-city event tour focused on education and activism on a state level to say NO to unconstitutional federal ‘laws’-which, in reality, are not laws at all.”
Focusing on the Founding principles of the United States Constitution, the tour will educate viewers about the Tenth Amendment, the powers of the state including that of nullification, and a variety of issues that can be resolved by state nullification.
On February 18, The New American’s Patrick Krey wrote this of nullification:
State nullification is actually an elaborate term for a simple concept that is taught to young children. When a child has a problem with another child who is verbally teasing him or her, they are often told ‘ignore them and they’ll go away’. State nullification basically follows this same directive. If the feds pass a law that a state deems to be outside the boundaries of its proper constitutional authority, the state will simple ignore the law and refuse to comply with it. This might sound revolutionary to some, but it shouldn’t. It’s already happened.
Krey goes on to cite well-documented examples of the states resorting to nullification, including with regards to the Firearms Freedom Act and the Real ID Act.
Similarly, William Jasper’s August 6 TNA article addressed nullification as a viable option to combat Obamacare, and explained the importance of nullification:
One of the most important and encouraging developments in recent times is the reassertion by the states of their sovereign powers against federal usurpation. The Framers of our Constitution well understood the tendencies of government toward encroachment and did not intend that the states should be helpless before an inexorable, centralizing national government. The states have the right (and duty) to resist unconstitutional arrogations by Washington of powers constitutionally reserved to the states. A principle form of resistance in this regard is for the state government simply to declare the offending federal law, regulation, or edict null and void and to refuse to enforce or implement it.
Proponents of state nullification, including those presenting the speaking tour, see it as an applicable option to cap and trade, Obamacare, and “other unconstitutional expansions of federal power through nullification.”
Speaker Thomas E. Woods is a reputable authority on state nullification and should prove to be a captivating guest at the speaking tour. In his appearance on the August 7 episode of Freedom Watch, Woods championed the lawsuits filed by the states against Obamacare as an example of states reclaiming their authority: “[States] weren’t intended to be doormats and litter boxes.”
|
|
However, Woods adds that the states should not turn to the courts when they believe there is unconstitutional overreach. “If the federal government can just monopolize the determination of what its powers are, it’s going to keep acquiring new powers. The states have to have some counterbalance in check and federal courts, ultimately, for whatever victories you might win once in awhile, cannot perform this role because they are an interested party. They are one of the parties in dispute between the states and the government. You don’t refer disputes between you and your neighbor to your wife.”
Overall, Woods defends nullification as the best option available to the states because of how far removed we are from the system founded by our Founding Fathers. “The system is rigged. The system is broken. The system is the opposite of what the Framers tried to give us. Thomas Jefferson imagined that the states would act as the sentinels of the liberty of the people. They would protect the people from the unconstitutional overreaches and those powers have by and large been stripped from the states over the years and they need to be reclaimed.”
Judge Napolitano said it best when he concluded his interview with Thomas Woods. “These are exciting times we live in. Who would have thought in 2010 we would be talking about the principles that were so dear to Thomas Jefferson? Your book Nullifcation has brought this to the floor.”
Anyone interested in attending Nullify Now! should visit www.nullifynow.com for tickets. Attendants interested in preparing themselves before the tour would do well to read Thomas Woods' Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21 Century (see below).
Endless litigation would obliterate any gains from such action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwdcmjBgNA
How I'd love to see the same video come across on TV but this time cleverly dealing with the "feral government." The liberal stance is idiotic and easily ridiculed, yet for some reason, since Reagan few have come close to his brilliant capitalization of their stupidity which makes them sitting ducks on the issues.
One reason for Reagan's consistently effective surgical strikes on the liberals is he was not impressed by them and knew exactly what they were about. Sad to say, few have his affability, understanding, and determination to cleverly defeat these "intellectual" ignoramuses.
That money amounts to nothing more than extortion. Again, the best defense, bite the bullet and ignore it.
No argument here. Historically, some of the states and even local jurisdictions were pretty heavy handed when laying down state and local law. As an aside, and I don't know but I can just hear it now, howls from citizens within offending states for the federales to DO something. Maybe not. But in any case enter the federales stage left with the old carrot and stick chicanery and we were off the the races. All made possible by, amongst other devices, the income tax.
Put aside the incessant meddling from the feral government and the theory of course was that the individual states would prosper or flounder depending upon how they handled their citizens' business. Born out to some extent even today, no?
Excellent!
Simple, yes. Likely to happen in our lifetimes; no.
I had not seen that clip before. What’s the word I’m looking for — intriguing, maybe???
According to Fox's judicial analyst, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Ohaha's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate state governments.
Nevertheless, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com............
=============================
States Can Check Washington's Power; by directly proposing constitutional amendments
WSJ 12/21/09 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
FR Posted 12/2/09 by rhema
For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.
The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.
There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.
The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.
But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.
The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the states demand it.(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Related Stories:
Randy Barnett: The Case for a Federalism Amendment
Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution
Of course the difference was that the film was about an external enemy – the Soviet Union. I wish this same film could be redone to deal America’s enemy within starting with the impostor occupying the White House itself.
Whoa - that is a startling statement. Could it be said that America right now is under the occupation of an enemy?
Yeah, I was very much around then; in fact helped put RR in office. He had the uncanny ability to reinstill(if that’s a word) pride in America that few before or after have been able or even willing to attempt. I like your idea BTW. Would that I had the talent to have a go at it. Would a snake work better for the enemy within???
Maybe rogue, even. It's criminal and acting on its own without regard to the Constitution, not make-up. It is, however, feral.
Maybe rogue, even. It's criminal and acting on its own without regard to the Constitution, not make-up. It is, however, feral.
Oh I dunno. Maybe we can make rouge work, that is, since they don't feel constrained by our Constitution, it's government they "make up" as they go along??? Yeah well, it's the best I could do on short notice. ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.