Question…if the federal government passed a law, in direct violation of the first amendment, that required you to participate in a particular religious service every Friday night, would you sit quietly and obey? Or, would you refuse to submit?

And, if the state of California passed a law not only denouncing such unconstitutional acts, but making their enforcement a crime, would you cheer them on for protecting the people there from religious tyranny, or would you say that California was violating federal supremacy?

I’d say we’re pretty much all in agreement here that the TSA is out of control. Some of us (yours truly included) would argue that the TSA shouldn’t even exist at all. But the real Question we face is this – What do we do about it?

–Should we call on the TSA and demand that this federal agency limit its own power?

–Or, should we march on DC and demand that the federal politicians limit the power of a federal agency that THEY voted for, and that they fund to the tune of 8 billion dollars?

–Or, should we boycott the airlines till they go broke….in the hopes that their buddies in dc won’t tell us that the airline industry is just “too big to fail” and then hand them another 15-20 billion of YOUR money like bush did in 2001?

–Or, should we go to federal courts in the hope that the 9 politically connected unaccountable federal lawyers will limit this federal agency – and give us permission to travel freely?

–Or maybe, we should just vote the bums out – in the hopes that the new bums will just say – oh, ok – sorry about the previous bums, we’ll fix everything for you….?

Yeah right.

FAILED STRATEGIES

For decades and decades….and decades – “we the people” have been marching on DC. We’ve been calling, and boycotting, and demanding, and suing – and voting bums out. But year in and year out – we have more and more violations of our rights. And, it doesn’t matter what political party is in power, the same continues on, and on….and on… They continually claim more and more power each year to “protect” you from some far off enemy. They claim the power to listen to your calls, to read your emails, monitor your bank accounts, bomb countries like Libya and Pakistan and Yemen. And now, to physically violate you, your children, and your grandparents. Both democrats and republicans alike have pushed and supported these kinds of measures for ages.

The question remains, then, what do we do about it?

My message tonight is pretty straightforward. The politicians in Washington DC will never help you on this.

A NEW DIRECTION FOR LIBERTY

Going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal government is a failed strategy – it doesn’t work. Period. What we need is something different. We need something that WILL work – and we need that now. And whether you know it or not, that’s what we’re here doing tonight, right now.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were pretty smart dudes. Back in 1798, they advised us what to do in situations like we’re facing today – where all three branches of the federal government were part of the problem.

That year, the sedition acts were passed – which criminalized free speech critical of the government. In response, those two smart dudes penned what became known as the “principles of ’98.” They were, most importantly, a blueprint for what we should do about unconstitutional “laws” from the federal government.

Jefferson wrote – “The several states composing the united states of america are not united on a principle of unlimited submission to their general government.” and, whensoever …”the general government assumes undelegated powers, a nullification of the act is THE rightful remedy.”

Madison, on the other hand, had his vision too. He wrote that states are “duty bound to interpose”, to stand between residents of the state and the federal government to prevent the harm that would result from a “deliberate, palpable, and dangerous” unconstitutional action by the federal government.

Sounds nice, right, but what does that mean for today?

We’re not supposed to wait 2 or 4 years for some new politicians to get in office and give us permission to be free. We’re not supposed to wait 2 or 4 or 6 years for some federal court to tell us, “ok, you can fly without being abused now.” We’re supposed to stand up and say no. In our communities. Now. Not next year, and not next fall. Today. Not tomorrow. Now.

FEDERAL THREATS

So when the feds threatened the state of Texas with a kind of a no-fly zone last month for considering a bill to ban pat downs without probable cause, the response should have been in the spirit of Jefferson and Madison. A reply could’ve gone something like this:

“Dear federal government, thank you for your note and opinion. Go to hell. We’ve got some flyin to do.”

While many were shocked at the letter sent to Texas, threatening people not to fly is really nothing new.

In 2005, the Bush administration and the republican-controlled Congress slammed through the real ID act. We were told that in the coming years, we would be required to have this new privacy-violating national ID card or we wouldn’t be able to do all sorts of things, including boarding planes. Starting in 2007, though, led by groups like the ACLU, states including Maine, New Hampshire, Montana and others began passing resolutions and laws denouncing the act, and refusing compliance with it. In no time, more than a dozen were saying no…flat-out refusing to obey. In early 2008, the Bush administration started issuing the threats. Montana, who had already unanimously passed a law to nullify real ID was on notice. Residents were warned that if their state didn’t comply, and pronto, they wouldn’t be able to fly.

In an interview on NPR, governor Schweitzer was asked about the threats to his state’s residents….what are you going to do, governor? His response?

QUOTE: “we found that it’s best to tell ‘em to go to Hell and run the state the way you want to run your state.”

He continued, saying that by passing a law rejecting the act, the state said.”we’re fed up with the federal government coming up with kookie IDs that do not make us more secure. This is the federal government telling a state must do something and you must pay for it. Well, thanks for playing. Montana’s not in.”

THE BACK DOWN

What happened when Schweitzer told Bush to go to hell? Did they shut down air travel like they threatened? Did they pull highway funding, did they roll in the tanks to quell the defiant resistance? Nope. They quietly backed off and showed that Montana and the other resisting states really hold the power. And, in the past 5 years, more than two dozen states have passed laws and resolutions refusing to comply with the real ID act. Here’s why this is significant. The law is still on the books in congress. It has never been challenged in court. But yet, through state and local resistance, it sits null and void in most of the country. State and local nullification – through noncompliance – works.

Today, there are five states considering bills to ban unconstitutional TSA practices, and sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect at least 10 more states doing the same in 2012. Utah has already announced a bill just like the one in Texas. And if people like Greenfield would have the courage to follow through and do the same right here in NYC, I know that he will get popular support like he’s never seen in his life.

25 states have effectively nullified the real ID act. Following the lead of my home state, California, 15 states are now increasingly rejecting the unconstitutional war on drugs with their own medical marijuana programs.

OUR STRATEGY

so here we now have a strategy – a Method that actually works – it’s three main steps.

1. resolve that you’re opposed to being violated, bullied and brutalized by this government.

2. leverage locally – press your local government to do their job….DUTY is what that smart dude Madison called it – interpose, stand between you and an oppressive federal agency, pass a law or even a resolution banning the groping, the scanning, or both.

3. network and join forces nationally – work to get other communities and other states on board doing the same.

What will happen? When enough people say NO to the TSA, and enough communities and states back them by passing laws to say NO too, there’s not much that DC can do to force their 4th amendment violating, unconstitutional garbage down our throats!

CONCORDIA RES PARVAE CRESCUNT

Back in 1767, the British parliament passed the “New York Restraining Act” – which closed down the NY assembly because they refused to comply with what they considered a previous unconstitutional act.

In response, John Dickinson, often referred to as “the Penman of the Revolution” wrote a series of 12 essays known as “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.” He wrote:

If the parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any of her rights, it may deprive any, or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those, who are powerful by their union.

He continued to say that, in essence, the rightful response at that moment would have been for other assemblies to have passed a simple non-binding resolution denouncing the act. Why? His answer came through clearly in his signature, where he wrote the Latin phrase, Concordia res parvae crescunt.

Small things grow great by concord.

Clearly, the Penman of the Revolution was right – and small things did grow great in the coming years. Each small step, every small act – opens new eyes to our cause. And when the cause is right and just, the tyrants who run the tsa, or the war mongers who bomb libya and yemen – will lose.

So no matter how difficult the odds, or how insurmountable the path may seem – I believe that it’s up to us to do what’s right. And for us at the Tenth Amendment Center, doing what’s right is pretty straightforward – the Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions and no excuses.

Thank you for listening and thank you for joining us in this historic struggle for liberty.

“We need to exercise our rights whether they want us to or not…”

Without trying, though, I guess I’ve been getting under her skin. She obviously doesn’t like the fact that the Tenth Amendment Center’s efforts to promote nullification have been gaining some serious traction around the country. Just this week, Rach did a full 14 minute segment on the subject. And her presentation, as you might guess, wasn’t a cheer leading session either.

The segment, titled “Confederates in the Attic” was about how efforts today, primarily championed by the Tenth Amendment Center, to decentralize power and reject unconstitutional federal “laws,” are somehow directly-related to slave owners in the pre-civil war south.

No. That’s not a joke.

She says “a conservative group called the Tenth Amendment Center has been pushing a lot of the anti-health reform stuff…in the context of nullification. And they’re pushing for other kinds of nullification too.”

Ok, other than the absurdity of using the term “conservative” to define an anti-drug war, antiwar, anti-patriot act organization started in 2006 in opposition to GW Bush, she’s right on the money here.

The Center has been pushing anti-health reform stuff? Yup. We drafted the model bill, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act. Versions of our legislation – to either fully nullify or refuse compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), have been introduced in 11 states so far, and it’s making headway in a few too.

We’re pushing for other kinds of nullification too? Ab-so-freakin-lutely.

Two for two. Good job, Rachel!

But here’s where she goes off the reservation into heavy “War profiteer masters” spin mode. You see, Rachel’s job, like everyone at MSNBC, CNN, Fox and the rest of the mainstream media, is to keep convincing people that the only way to think is in a battle of democrat vs republican. Conservative vs liberal. One side is your friend, the other is your enemy. While left fears right and right fears left, her and her buddies keep getting more money and more power.

Sun Tzu would’ve been proud at this modern iteration of his strategy to divide and conquer.

Rachel continues – by telling her audience of the crazy stuff that the Tenth Amendment Center is pushing, and that states are actually working on. Here’s a few:

–Food Freedom Act – nullifying the “Food safety and modernization act,”
–Firearms Freedom Act – nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations
–Intrastate Commerce Act – all products made or grown in state and sold in state are not under federal purview.
–EPA Nullification – nullifying some or all EPA regulations

Without getting into the details of how she twisted each and every one of these efforts, it’s easiest to sum it up with this single statement of hers in rounding up the nullification movement:

“Your federal laws don’t apply here, Yankees!”

You don’t like a federal law and work to oppose it in your state? You must love the slave-ownin’ south. Wow, how insightful, Rachel!

So, is Rachel Maddow just a jerk, is she a liar, or is she ignorant? Hard to say, but let me share a little perspective.

I don’t fool myself into thinking that a majority of Rachel’s audience is going to be supportive of everything that we’re working to nullify – especially things like gun laws and the EPA. But, I do know in my own experience through interviews with places like Mother Jones, Raw Story, Huffington Post, and others, that there is some strong support on particular issues.

While Rachel was talking about what she wants you to believe is a racist, evil nullification movement being pushed by the TAC, she had this picture showing – a somewhat-modified version of our live Legislative Tracking page:

Did Rachel do her journalistic duty and report on the top-listed efforts of the Nullification movement, or did she pick and choose just a few in order to frame the discussion in a left vs right cat fight?

I wonder.

She talked about guns, food safety, the EPA and even Constitutional Tender Acts. But, why oh why did she skip over any and everything that would be of interest to her own audience?

The answer is pretty obvious to me.

So what did Rachel skip reporting on? Let’s see.

The number one thing listed on that page – unreadable on TV – is “state marijuana laws.”

You’d think if she were “reporting” on efforts that the TAC was pushing, she’d at least mention the first thing on our list. But, what could Rachel use to scare her mostly-liberal audience there? “These neo-confederates are trying to destroy the union by refusing to comply with the drug war! Beware!!”

Or, right below that red MSNBC graphic blob, you could see, click and learn about how 25 states, championed by the ACLU, passed laws to reject Bush’s 2005 Real ID act.

Would Rachel have then said, “The ACLU wants us to believe we can just pick and choose what laws to follow. That’s what Calhoun said in South Carolina – and it led directly to the civil war!”

Or, just below that, you could see how the Tenth Amendment Center is working to promote efforts to nullify TSA body scanners and violations of the 4th Amendment – as referenced by the Raw Story here.

“These conservatives want the terrorists to win, and they’re willing to let radical Islamo-fascists get on planes without being body-scanned. Do they really want another civil war?” Is that Maddow’s view on the TSA?

And, just one more – she also skipped over our Defend the Guard act, which is a first step effort towards ending unconstitutional wars from the bottom up. The bill was just introduced in Maine – with 2 republican and 4 democrat co-sponsors.

I wonder how Rachel would’ve dealt with that one. Maybe something like, “Barack Obama is trying to do his duty as commander in chief and keep this country safe. These confederate states don’t like our boys in uniform and are obviously part of the blame-America-first crowd. If the nullifers win, we just might be invaded by Libya!”

No. She’d never do any of that. I’d respect her more if she did, though.

Why? Because at least she’d be consistent in principle. Which, of course, she’s not. Partisan hack comes to mind, but I think that’s too soft a term.

To support nullification, you don’t have to be from the right or the left. You just have to decide that enough is enough, that you want to determine you own rules in your own area. Don’t expect that to be in the next segment, though. Zombies attack!

Next time, maybe she’ll call me before reporting on the TAC again. Maybe. But, I doubt it.

DELEGATED POWERS

The ninth and tenth amendments, while they didn’t add anything new, defined the Constitution. In short, they tell us that the federal government is only authorized to exercise those powers delegated to it in the Constitution…and nothing more. Everything else is either prohibited or retained by the states or people themselves.

What does this have to do with Libya? Well, whenever the federal government does anything, the first question should always be, “where in the Constitution is the authority to do this?” What follows here is an answer regarding American bombs being dropped on Libya.

WHO DECIDES?

Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution has been regularly cited as justification for the President to act with a seemingly free reign in the realm of foreign policy – including the initiation of foreign wars. But, it is Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that lists the power to declare war, and this power is placed solely in the hands of Congress.

Article II, Section 2, on the other hand, refers to the President as the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States.” What the founders meant by this clause was that once war was declared, it would then be the responsibility of the President, as the commander-in-chief, to direct the war.

Alexander Hamilton clarified this when he said that the President, while lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized.”

Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed this quite eloquently when, in 1801, he said that, as President, he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”

In Federalist #69, Alexander Hamilton explained that the President’s authority:

“would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the legislature.”

James Madison warned us that the power of declaring war must be kept away from the executive branch when he wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

“The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.”

WORDS HAVE MEANING

If, like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean today just what they meant the moment it was signed, we must first look for the 18th Century meaning of the words used. Here’s a few common 18th-century definitions of the important words:

War: The exercise of violence against withstanders under a foreign command.
Declare: Expressing something before it is promised, decreed, or acted upon.
Invade: To attack a country; to make a hostile entrance

What does this all mean? Unless the country is being invaded, if congress does not declare war against another country, the president is constitutionally barred from waging it, no matter how much he desires to do so. Pre-emptive strikes and undeclared offensive military expeditions are not powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, and are, therefore, unlawful.

HOW IT APPLIES TODAY

Here’s the quick overview of how this all plays out:

• In Constitutional terms, the United States is currently at war with Libya.
• Libya is not invading the United States, nor has it threatened to do so.
• Congress has not declared war. Barack Obama did.

Get the New Book Today!

Some would claim, and news articles are already reporting on it, that the 1973 war powers resolution authorizes the President to start a war as long as it’s reported to Congress within 48 hours. Then, Congress would have 60 days to authorize the action, or extend it.

The only question you should have to ask for this would be – “where in the Constitution is congress given the authority to change the constitution by resolution?”

It doesn’t. And that resolution, in and of itself, is a Constitutional violation. More on that in a future article, of course.

James Madison had something to say about such a plan when he wrote:

“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” [emphasis added]

War Powers resolution or no war powers resolution – without a Congressional declaration, the president is not authorized to start an offensive military campaign. Period.

The bottom line? By using US Military to begin hostilities with a foreign nation without a Congressional declaration of war, Barack Obama has committed a serious violation of the Constitution. While he certainly is not the first to do so in regards to war powers, it’s high time that he becomes the last.

sunrise, Albuquerque, KC, more sunrise, Chicago, my brother!, Teddy, Pizza, and yes…lots of Sarah…! Plus a couple hidden gems on prohibition, Ron Paul on Michigan Ave in Chicago, Herts not Hertz, and Teddy in the Matrix…

Have fun! We did!

No photos available right now.

Please verify your settings, clear your RSS cache on the Slickr Flickr Admin page and check your Flickr feed

Oddly enough, no one searched me at all. I never got asked for an ID. The employees have all been very friendly, helpful and full of smiles – so far. With three-pronged power-outlets at every seat in Coach, and mobile broadband internet from Clear wireless, I’m actually able to get some work done too! It has been a great start to what I hope will be fun, insightful trip.

Stay tuned here for more updates over the next few days. Right now, a little rest, I hope, then an early wakeup for a quick stop in Flagstaff (and more pictures too!) By the way, if you’re reading from the NE, please stop by and see me at Nullify Now! New Hampshire on March 19th!

No photos available right now.

Please verify your settings, clear your RSS cache on the Slickr Flickr Admin page and check your Flickr feed

Thanks to friends John Bush and Cat Bleish for the idea. They recently got stuck having to live with me for 3 days in L.A. after being given the option to go through a TSA body scanner or have hands down the pants. Amtrak was their way home too.

No photos available right now.

Please verify your settings, clear your RSS cache on the Slickr Flickr Admin page and check your Flickr feed

No photos available right now.

Please verify your settings, clear your RSS cache on the Slickr Flickr Admin page and check your Flickr feed

No photos available right now.

Please verify your settings, clear your RSS cache on the Slickr Flickr Admin page and check your Flickr feed

Nullification. The word evokes images of white-haired men with tri-fold hats, holding up signs about the “evils” of Obamacare and socialism.

States around the country are considering laws to reject federal laws on health care, guns, Environmental Protection Agency regulations and more. The pundits scream “racism,” the legal experts cite the “supremacy clause,” and the entire country – left to right – just might be missing the point.

As executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, the organization which created the “Health Care Nullification Act” introduced in more than 10 states, I see many people who fit this stereotypical “tenther” image, too.

Whenever I speak at “Nullify Now!” events around the country, the crowd is predominantly these folks. While a few progressives occasionally join the protesters, one doesn’t find too many 20-somethings with Che T-shirts attending such events.

While the rhetoric coming from many on the right these days includes words like “nullification,” and “state sovereignty,” it has been the left, not the right, which has been successful in putting these ideas into practice. And, California has been at the forefront since the beginning.

When Californians voted to approve Proposition 215 to allow medical marijuana, the word “nullification” was not part of the argument, but it most certainly was the result. Opponents often cited the Constitution’s “supremacy clause,” saying the state had no authority to violate federal marijuana laws. But, Californians voted to violate those laws by the millions. And, when the Supreme Court ruled in the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich case that state-level medical marijuana laws were, in essence, illegal, dispensaries around the state didn’t start closing shop.

In fact, by 2005, there were nine other states that had joined California in passing medical marijuana laws. After the supremes told the country that such laws were a big no-no, how many were repealed? Zero. And since then, another five states – most recently, Arizona – have joined up.

Think about that. There are now 15 states actively defying Congress and the Supreme Court – and they’re getting away with it. This, more than anything else, is what nullification is: any action which results in federal law(s) being rendered nearly unenforceable.

Green Door Hydro, Los Angeles

When I took a bike ride around my neighborhood in downtown L.A. the other day, I didn’t find a single Drug Enforcement Agent shutting down an arts district grow shop. A recent trip to Venice confirmed my hunch that there are plenty of businesses and individuals openly nullifying federal laws with dispensaries galore. A visit to the Bay Area last fall verified the same.

But yet, how often does one hear a legal scholar or a political pundit spending time and energy on how these pot-dealers and pot-smokers are bringing chaos to America?

How often do you hear that this active nullification of federal drug laws is done by people who hate President Obama for being black? I’ll assume you’ve that heard just about as much as I have – never.

Medical marijuana isn’t the only issue where Californians have taken a lead in standing up to the feds. In 2006, when the Congressional Research Service released a report on “sanctuary cities” around the country, California was at the head of the pack, with more major cities on the list than any other state in the country.

Oddly enough, I haven’t heard about Washington, D.C., threatening to withhold highway funds. The national guard hasn’t been sent in to force these cities to comply with federal immigration laws. But yet, that’s what some claim will happen if health care nullification laws are passed today.

I doubt it. If today’s nullification proposals follow in the path of the left’s nullification of federal drug and immigration laws, it’s quite possible we’ll see the same kind of results. The feds backing off.

The real question, of course, is this – will gay marriage advocates in Maine, health care nullification advocates in Idaho, gun rights activists in Oklahoma, and marijuana advocates in California ever realize that they’re actually on the same side?

They likely don’t agree on specific issues, but they agree with their actions; the most difficult and divisive issues need to be dealt with close to home, in their states. Either way, it’s good to be in California, where nullification is alive and well.

USA Today – 02-28
John Adams – not that one, the journalist – did a pretty solid job of reporting….actually giving both sides pretty much equal space.

Michael Boldin, executive director of the Los Angeles-based Tenth Amendment Center, disagrees. The center advocates for states rights based on the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment — that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people.

Boldin said states already have proven their ability to nullify federal law. He points to 15 states that have openly defied federal drug laws by legalizing medical marijuana and 25 states that refused to implement the 2005 REAL ID Act, a law creating a national identification card.

“When enough people say no to Washington, D.C., and enough states pass laws backing them up, there’s not much Washington, D.C., can do to enforce those laws,” Boldin said.

Just a brief mention in the New York Times on 02-28-11:

“There’s been a kind of ramping up,” said Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, a research and advocacy group in Los Angeles. Last year, Mr. Boldin said, many of the bills were simply statements of dissatisfaction or intent. This year, he said, the bills are armed with teeth and recommended penalties. The Arizona bill, for instance, would make it a felony for anyone who tried to enforce federal commerce laws.

The New American had a nice writeup about efforts in Arizona to pass the Intrastate Commerce Act:

Michael Boldin of The Tenth Amendment Center, in writing about Arizona’s bill and resulting felony charges for violators, said that the U.S. Congress has for decades used “a tortured definition of interstate commerce,” and that Arizona is leading the way to rightfully reclaiming the authority to regulate commerce within its own borders

Politics Daily (an AOL News property), had a short blurb – as a follow up to a previous interview I had done with them a couple weeks ago:

“These nullification bills aren’t just sprouting up naturally state by state,” Schweitzer said in an interview. “These notions are cooked up, conjured up and handed down as talking points and bill language that are passed to legislatures around the country.”

Schweitzer didn’t mention specific sources, but Michael Boldin, director of the Los Angeles-based Tenth Amendment Center, takes responsibility for many of the anti-health care bills. “There are 11 states that have taken our model legislation and introduced it verbatim or a modified version,” he said.

World Net Daily continued their regular nullification reports, with some choice quotes:

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates a return to the constitutionally delegated powers for the federal government, Thomas Jefferson advised, “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers … a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

A multitude of nullification acts already are in the works across the nation on issues ranging from firearms freedom acts that reject some federal gun laws, a rejection of Washington’s mandates on cannabis laws and even Obamacare.

Center founder Michael Boldin said the idea that states would reject a Washington demand is not radical, it’s reasonable. He said what’s radical is “the idea that the federal government can be the final arbiter of the extent of its own powers.”