Links tagged “Tenth Amendment”

As of Wednesday, November 7, the electoral count (FoxNews) stands at 303 – 206 in Obama’s favor, with only Florida having yet to complete their tallies. Aside from being shocked (I allowed myself to succumb to the eccentricities of the Morris/Rove/Barone/Ulsterman-WHI “Romeny’s-going-to-win-by-a-landslide” contingent), the bottom line is that Team Obama simply had a better ground game:

The story of the election: Obama turned out his base. As a percentage of the electorate, young voters (18-29) actually increased by a point. So did turnout among Latinos. And turnout among blacks matched 2008. O’s ground game was simply amazing.

On the exceptionally negative side, the following must be fully understood (and I’m convinced it’s not, by anyone on any side, yet):

• The Senate (for the next two years) is controlled by the Democrats. This means that even if the GOP-controlled House decides to, say, draw up articles of impeachment over a hot issue like the Benghazi massacre, it would very likely be stopped in the Senate
• The House, while still solidly in the control of the GOP (with no less Tea Party influence than it is now), gives Obama every chance to simply route Executive Orders around them without thinking twice

On the other hand, now that there are 30 States with Republican Governors, Tenth Amendment-based initiatives have become significantly easier to come by. Consider that 6 out of 10 such ballot initiatives passed last night by overwhelming majorities. Ironically, they were set to satisfy both the right (healthcare mandate nullifications) and the left (consumer-based marijuana usage).

Could it be possible that if the Federalists in DC become so overly zealous with mandates that the States — at least the most red ones — would rise up and say, “no?” Maybe, but the threat of federal money removal is a strong incentive to keep States in line.

Beyond the statecraft of it all, it is my opinion that the GOP needs to take itself to the proverbial woodshed and get a personality makeover:

• This race was not about ideology. On a local basis, Tea Party-backed candidates had no problems getting elected. It was only when certain pro-life senatorial candidates decided to dive head-first into foot-in-mouth syndrome did they lose handily
• White people no longer make up the majority of the electorate, even as much as they did ten years ago. Multiple ethnic groups are becoming bigger pluralities in the electorate
• Hurricane Sandy was Obama’s uncontrolled November Surprise. His being seen alongside New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was essentially the icing on the cake, likely giving Obama the extra point or two of “looking presidential” that he needed at the right time to push over the finish line. Why? Well, if Obama can be seen amicably appearing to deal with a disastrous situation next to an exceptionally outspoken Republican Governor, then the perception is that Obama can just as easily reach across the aisle as Romney could have
• Let’s not forget that it is nevertheless exceptionally difficult to unseat an incumbent President.

In my view, here is a key question that the GOP must successfully answer if it is to succeed at the national level, going forward:

Why is it that Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. can win a landslide victory from the Mayo Clinic but Rep. Allen West cannot? Seriously. What’s the difference?

I think the GOP has a trust and an image problem with a growing segment of the electorate. Why can’t the GOP be trusted with “minority” votes, even though its ranks include the likes of Gov. Mendendez, Gov. Jindal, Gov. Haley, and Sen. Rubio?

Tell me this: What’s the first reaction that Democrats have when the GOP speaks of one of the aforementioned individuals? You’re just putting a token [insert favorite ethnic group here] on the dashboard; it doesn’t mean anything.

Am I right? OK, then how does one turn this around?

Hint: In 2016, if the GOP does not nominate someone like Sen. Rubio as its standard-bearer, they will lose. I’m going to go ahead and call it, merely one day after the 2012 General Election.

Do I think the GOP has a conservative message issue? Yes. But conservatism isn’t the actual issue. Remember the bad logic? Just because someone possesses contraception doesn’t mean they will automatically go out and have sex with someone. Just because someone possesses a gun doesn’t mean they’re going to automatically shoot someone. Wrap such social issues up in libertarian terms and you win the argument.

The path to victory: Aggressively reach out to ethnic groups like your party depends on it (I think it does), and demonstrate that taking responsibility is both a good and cool thing to do. Then, celebrate the crap out of such victories at all levels in the organization and, in time, the trust and image issues will take care of themselves.

People think the system is stacked against them, and maybe it is. But people also conduct their lives in a generally conservative manner. Take advantage of that.

Update:

This comment from Prof. Jacobson’s bog links to EvilBloggerLady, further confirming my thoughts RE: expanding demographics (read: you can’t count solely on only white people voting with you to win nationally anymore).

Also: Wisconsin’s State government is now in full GOP control, even though they’re not sending senatorial candidate Tommy Thompson nor their share of electoral votes for Mitt Romney to Washington.

Regardless, Veep candidate and re-elected Representative from the same State Paul Ryan will be back in the next Congress, still chairing the Budget Committee in the House.

The House firewall remains intact, for now.

-Phil

[email protected]

Blog note: I’m in the process of deleting spam users from my site. Therefore, you might have to re-register to comment. My apologies for the inconvenience, if any.

Back on November 17, Michael Boldin at the TenthAmendmentCenter.com reported that the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania became one of the latest States to formally introduce legislation potentially nullifying federal gun laws through their own Firearms Freedom Act:

Pennsylvania State Representative Sam Rohrer has introduced the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB1988) for consideration in the state legislature.    The bill is “An Act prohibiting certain firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition from being subject to Federal law or Federal regulation.”

HB1988 currently has 48 additional co-sponsors, and according to FirearmsFreedomAct.com, is similar to bills recently enacted into law in both Montana and Tennessee.

While the bill seems to focus solely on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government.  It specifically states:

The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

Rohrer, in a recent letter to Pennsylvania House Members, addressed the issue of the commerce clause:

Under the current, expansive interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, it is permissible for the federal government to regulate the sale of goods that are manufactured and sold exclusively within a state’s borders. Effectively, the federal courts hold that if a product might possibly find its way into streams of interstate commerce, federal laws to regulate that product are appropriate. The product need not actually be sold between states.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a farmer who was fined by the federal government for growing too much wheat. Effectively, the argument in Wickard v. Filburn was that the wheat he grew and consumed himself would lead to decreased wheat sales in other states, so it fell under federal jurisdiction because of the interstate commerce clause.

As recently as 2005 (Gonzales v. Raich), the U.S. Supreme Court cited Wickard as standing for the proposition that “Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for interstate sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.”

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, wheat (in Wickard) and medical marijuana (in Raich) are completely indistinguishable from such products made and sold in interstate commerce, so federal regulation is appropriate.

Under my bill, the policy of this Commonwealth would be that firearms and firearm accessories manufactured and exclusively sold in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, carrying the brand “Made in Pennsylvania” (all clear indicators of intrastate commerce), would be subject only to state law.

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.

The rest of the above posting goes on to describe other efforts at States’ rights legislation across the country, including Arizona’s push-back on the feds regarding national health care, as well as initiatives within Florida, Georgia and Minnesota.

Today, the great State of Ohio’s Senate affirmed the 10th Amendment:

By a vote of 19-12 today, the Ohio State Senate passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 (SCR13).  (h/t OhioFreeState.com)

The resolution seeks to “claim sovereignty over certain powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, to notify Congress to limit and end certain mandates, and to insist that federal legislation contravening the Tenth Amendment be prohibited or repealed.”

If passed by the House of Representatives, Ohio will become the 8th state to have passed such a resolution in 2009.  Other states that have reaffirmed their sovereignty are Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee.

While sovereignty resolutions do not carry the force of law behind them, supporters say that they are a long-overdue first step in moving the country towards constitutional government.

Charles Key, state representative from Oklahoma and author of that state’s sovereignty resolution, compared these resolutions to a cease and desist notice a landlord gives a non-paying tenant.

“If you’ve got a tenant that’s not paying rent, you don’t just show up one day with an empty truck,” said Key in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center.  “First, you serve notice.  That’s how we see these resolutions, as a notice to the federal government.  And there defintely will be follow up.”

The follow up that Rep. Key is referring to has been popping up all over the country.  Legislation that calls upon the Jeffersonian principle of “nullification” has already been advancing a number of causes, and some success has been gained, too.

A state-level rebellion to the Bush-era Real ID act has rendered the law virtually null and void. Thirteen states have passed various marijuana laws in direct contravention to federal laws.  Two states have passed laws nullifying some federal gun regulations.

Groups in multiple states are pushing their governments to withdraw their state’s guard troops from Iraq and elsewhere. And people in up to 10 states may have the opportunity to vote on state constitutional amendments effectively banning national health care.

The long-term success of all these efforts remain to be seen, especially with a Federal Judiciary which has not often been too friendly to the Constitutional intent of the Founders and Ratifiers.

But, many supporters point to the growing success on issues like Real ID and Medical Marijuana as examples which prove that with enough state-level resistance, the federal government has no option but to back off, with or without judicial approval.

The full text of the resolution can be seen at the link.

Other news related to States’ rights and/or general federal government accountability:

• The 10-4 Pledge for the Constitution (TenthAmendmentCenter.com)
• The Federal Reserve vs. the Constitution (TenthAmendmentCenter.com)
• Yes, Virginia and South Carolina: You can save the Republic! [13th Amendment] (The Post & Email)
• From Sovereignty Declaration to Implementation (TenthAmendmentCenter.com)

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

The battle over federalism begins on a new front as US Attorney General Eric Holder fired a shot across the bow of the great State of Oklahoma by threatening the loss of federal tax dollars over the State constitutional amendment initiative of an English-only requirement slated to appear on the 2010 ballot (via PatriotsForAmerica):

For Immediate Release: Contact: Jared Young (202) 224-5762

July 28, 2009 [email protected]

Don Tatro – Coburn – (202) 224-5754

Link to Press Release Leslie Shedd – Lucas – (202) 225-5565

Link to letter from DOJ Kathryn Bruns – Fallin – (202) 225-2132

Link to letter to DOJ Cole Perryman – Boren – (202) 225-2701

Liz Eddy – Cole – (202) 225-6165

(OKLA) DELEGATION QUESTIONS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S THREAT TO CUT

FEDERAL FUNDING

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Members of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation today sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking justification and clarification for a letter the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent to Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson threatening Oklahoma with a loss of federal funding if the state passed a constitutional amendment making English the official language of the state.

The original DOJ letter, characterized by delegation members as dubiously timed at the peak of legislative debate, advises the state that “implementation of this [English-only] amendment may conflict with Oklahoma’s obligations to protect the civil rights of limited English proficient (LEP) persons.”

Dated April 14, 2009 from Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, the DOJ letter states, “As you know, recipients of federal financial assistance must comply with various civil rights statutes, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin.” The letter continues, “State agencies and other entities in Oklahoma that receive federal financial assistance thus would be precluded by federal law from abiding by an English-only requirement where it conflicts with their obligations under Title VI.”

The Oklahoma Congressional Delegation’s letter to Holder points out that several other states have passed similar legislation and asks if they too have been “accused by the Department of Justice to be in violation with Title VI, or formally threatened with funding termination.” The delegation letter asks for an explanation for what prompted the DOJ to write the state of Oklahoma on this issue and seeks explanation for what funds would be eliminated should Oklahomans pass the English only amendment.

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe stated, “This nation’s cultural diversity is one that contributes to the greatness of our country. I support the state’s effort to pass a constitutional amendment making English the official language of the state because it ultimately facilitates better communication across the many lines of diversity within our state. The state legislature has overwhelmingly passed this amendment, and now it is up to the voters of Oklahoma to decide if they wish to accept it. It is entirely unacceptable for the federal government to try to strong arm the state by threatening to remove federal funding. I look forward to hearing the Justice Department’s explanation for such behavior.”

Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. said, “Secretary Holder owes the residents of Oklahoma an explanation as to why this thinly veiled threat was issued to Oklahoma on a state matter. The last thing Oklahoma needs is a bureaucrat in Washington dictating more of what we can and cannot do. Officials at the Department of Justice should focus on more pressing matters under their jurisdiction before issuing statements about a state issue that has yet to become law.”

Rep. Dan Boren said, “The state of Oklahoma deserves a clear explanation of why it seems the Department of Justice has singled out the state and threatened funding retribution over a State Legislature initiative that has been approved in other states already. I join my colleagues in urging the Department to give us a full account of their actions on this issue.”

Rep. John Sullivan said, “It is inappropriate for the United States Department of Justice to interfere in what is ultimately a state matter. In 2010, voters in Oklahoma will decide if the state constitution will be amended to make English the official language of the state and I proudly stand with the rest of the state delegation in supporting Oklahoma’s right to decide this issue.”

Rep. Frank Lucas added, “Our country benefits from the diversity of our people,” stated Lucas. “However, throughout our history, it has been our common language that binds us as one nation. In order for new immigrants to our country to be successful and realize the American Dream, they must be able to speak the English language. Punishing the state of Oklahoma for encouraging that is unnecessary.”

Rep. Mary Fallin said, “This incident should send shock waves through every state in the union. The letter from DOJ is an affront to Oklahoma’s tenth amendment rights under the Constitution. We should be allowed to pursue this policy without facing preemptive manipulation from the federal government.” [emphases original]

The LibertarianRepublican blog included the following:

For more information on the movement for English Only in Oklahoma Immigration Reform for Oklahoma Now (IRON)

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE

Article: “The threat of Secession looms ever nearer” by Webster’s Blogspot, July 26, examines Oklahoma’s increasing opposition to federally mandated health care coverage and the States’ potential reaction, if it is enacted. State Rep. Charles Key (Dist. 90 Oklahoma City), recently stated that if the health care legislation is forced upon the states, “Secession may be an option.”

May the citizens of the great State of Oklahoma take note to support their State and federal delegations; may the rest of the American people take note and consider the route of maintaining federalism as a reasonable dissenting alternative to a grossly overweight (by the measurements of both money and power) federal government.

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Photo courtesy arts.ok.gov

I wanted to take a moment to once again publicly thank Michael Boldin at TenthAmendmentCenter.com for the great work he’s been putting forth in helping all of us keep up to date on State-based initiatives occurring across America.

While I have been focusing predominantly on the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Amendment initiatives at the State level, another issue that is near and dear to my family’s heart is health care, especially in light of the federal debate on exactly whether or not and how we should “nationalize” our healthcare system. And while I am categorically against any form of socialized medicine (meaning that I believe it should be up to the individual to make their own health decisions, be they good or bad), as the first referenced link will show, it’s important to remember that the debate can occur not only between the federal government and individuals, but also between the States and the federal government.

In other words, the question of whether or not the federal government should even be considering such a dramatically broad encroachment upon individual lives is just as important as the question of what kind of coverage we think that everyone should have. After all, while the image associated with this posting is an excellent caricature of the issue at hand, you should ask yourself — would you be comfortable with the federal government making your health care decisions for you? (Can you say, “Dr. Obama?”)

Consider the following from Arizona:

Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014).  This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.

Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.

Five other states — Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming — are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots. …

Real ID as the Blueprint?

While some constitutional experts are skeptical of the effect that such legislation could have, supporters can point to the successful campaign to oppose the 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 more 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 additional states  got on board with legally-binding legislation refusing Real ID implementation.

Earlier this month, 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.

Nullification

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.

Nullification has a long and interesting history in American politics, and originates in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that 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.

Historian Thomas E. Woods looks at nullification as a constitutional “check,” and a way to prevent one government from having the power to rule on the limits of its own authority:

“The main point that nullification aims to address is that a government allowed to determine the scope of its own powers cannot remain limited for long. This is a lesson we should have learned by now. Moreover, since piecemeal solutions to reducing federal power have accomplished nothing, we can hardly afford to dismiss out of hand the idea of nullification, a remedy that is at once creative and intelligent, and recommended by some of the greatest political thinkers in American history.”

Resistance Left, Right and Center?

Groups across the political spectrum have focused their efforts on this same principle – calling on state governments to not just say no to the federal government, but to actively resist federal laws and actions.

• Firearms Freedom Acts have passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and under the force of law, call on those governments to refuse federal regulation of firearms made and kept in those respective states.
• Bring the Guard Home is a campaign of mostly antiwar activists that are calling on governors to assert constitutional authority over their state’s guard – and refuse to deploy troops for any reason other than authorized by the constitution
• Medical Marijuana Laws - have passed in multiple states around the country and are directly opposed to federal drug laws that see marijuana as illegal under all circumstances.
• Real ID legislation has passed in approximately 2 dozen states requiring state governments to refuse implementation of the 2005 law.
• Health Care Freedom Acts are being actively pursued in six states (including Arizona), and would resist proposed national health care legislation on a number of levels.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has also introduced legislation at the federal level, such as the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act, HR 2630:

which allows patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system.  The bill also repeals sections of federal law establishing a “unique health identifier” and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a 3rd party.

…as well as Coercion is Not Health Care Act, HR 2629:

This legislation forbids the federal government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, or conditioning participation in any federal program on the purchase of health insurance.

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen signed his State’s 10th Amendment resolution:

This week, Tennesse Governor Phil Bredesen signed House Joint Resolution 108 (HJR0108), authored by State Rep. Susan Lynn.  The resolution “Urges Congress to recognize Tennessee’s sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the Constitution.”

The House passed the resolution on 05/26 by a vote of 85-2 and the Senate passed it on 06/12 by a vote of 31-0.

Six other states have had both houses of their legislature pass similar resolutions – Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Louisiana – but Tennessee is the first to have such a resolution signed by the Governor.

A GROWING MOVEMENT

Passage of this resolution appears to be part of what is now a growing state-level resistance to the federal government on various levels.   Similar 10th Amendment resolutions have been introduced in 36 states around the country, and various states are considering single-issue legislation in direct contravention to federal laws.

Most recently, the Arizona Legislature passed a measure for public approval on the 2010 state ballot that would give Arizona voters the opportunity to nullify, or opt out, of any potential national health care legislation.

Since 2007, more than two dozen states have passed legislation refusing to implement the Real ID act of 2005.  In response, the federal government has recently announced that they want to “repeal and replace” the law due to a rebellion by states.

Pending legislation in states around the country also includes preventing state law enforcement officials from enforcing federal laws, refusing federal gun regulations, refusing to send a state’s national guard to any duty other than what the constitution authorizes, legalizing marijuana for various purposes and more.

A FIRST STEP

While HJR0108 is strongly-word in support of the principles of limited, constitutional government that the 10th Amendment represents, it is a Joint Resolution and does not carry with it the force of law.  But supporters say that this is an important first step to get their message out not only to grassroots supporters, but to the media, and legislators in other states as well.

In additional to calling  on the federal government to abide by the constitution, it also states that  “a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed by the Speaker of the House and of the Senate, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolution to the legislatures of the several states, to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and to call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.”

The final verbiage of the resolution can be found at the referenced link.

Louisiana also affirmed sovereignty:

the Louisiana State House voted to approve Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 (SCR2) which “Memorializes Congress to affirm Louisiana’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States of America.”

The resolution, authored by State Senator Crowe, passed by a vote of 59-12.  It previously passed the State Senate by a vote of 32-0.  (h/t hayestown)

Louisiana joins Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Idaho and Tennessee as states where similar resolutions affirming sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution have been approved by both legislative houses.

A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.

-Phil

Photoshopped image courtesy Moonbattery

I would typically post a “States’ Rights Update” for something like this, but enough stories broke out concerning a plethora of issues that are affected by the balance of power RE: federalism that I thought it best to put this under “#iamthemob,” a Twitter “hash tag” the speaks to the elites in DC calling tea partyers mobsters.

And, especially for this posting, the label works.

We’ll start out with a short snippet of a monologue by Judge Andrew Napolitano who happened to sub for Glenn Beck’s FoxNews show (h/t MediaMatters). If you’re a “Tenther” like me, you’re gonna love this:

As I’ve been chronicling highlights on my blog — and much more can be found at Michael Boldin’s TenthAmendmentCenter.com site — movement towards the concept of “nullification” is certainly at hand. The latest from Kentucky:

In states around the country, there’s a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution – the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment.  Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.

The latest to join the FFA movement?  Kentucky.  Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law”

While the FFA’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government.  The bills in state houses contain language such as the following:

“federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state] and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”

So, what’s the principle behind nullification?

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.

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.

Such examples of nullification include the Arizona State Legislature that has put its own State constitutional amendment to be on the ballot in 2010 to, among other things, overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private insurance.

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, there is already a lawsuit in effect in Montana based on their legislation that is now law that exempts any firearms or munitions specifically made and sold within the State from being subject to federal gun laws.

You can see much more concerning the movement to nullify federal gun laws here.

On the healthcare front, things are similarly brewing at the State level. As 73Wire generally reports:

With the House of Representatives passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and the Senate currently reviewing at least two different versions of their own Health Care reform bills, States are beginning to prepare for the possibility that the Federal government will require, by law, that they spend (millions or billions) of dollars they do not have to provide insurance to their populations. …

The Individual Mandate portion of any bill would require State Medicare operations to accept an influx of new enrollees onto their books at levels never before seen in America. California, for example, already battling record high unemployment and budgetary problems would have to accommodate upwards of 1.6 million people required by law to have  coverage. …

Most states are facing similar problems, according to a new Pew Research report released today finding:  10 states face looming budget disasters and that’s just one part… these bills would also require States to set up and operate a network of state-operated healthcare exchanges …

Although some stimulus money was slotted to boost Medicaid in States across America to help alleviate the burden, those funds will run out well before States recover form high unemployment and a down economy.

More can be found at the link.

More specifically, Virginia’s new Governor-Elect is saying no to federally-ran healthcare (h/t CNSNews), instead wanting the States to take more control over exactly how programs are run:

Virginia’s Governor-elect Bob McDonnell (R) said that his administration would not participate in a government-run health insurance plan, if one is passed by Congress and signed into law. He also urged other governors to “stand up” against federal proposals if they are not good for their states.

McDonnell, who won election on Nov. 3 with 59 percent of the vote, said on the Nov. 8 edition of CNN’s “State of the Union” that a government-run public option would be bad for his recently red state. McDonnell also said that during the campaign he heard concerns from Virginia voters about the negative consequences of the congressional Democrats’ health care overhauls.

“My concern is just from hearing from Virginians over the last couple of months, is the increase in cost, less choices, perhaps longer waiting lines, and more government control,” McDonnell said on CNN.

“Families and businesses in Virginia told me they’re very concerned about those [issues], taking money from Medicare, maybe $400 billion,” he said. …

“Well, either way, my preference would be not to have Virginia participate,” McDonnell told CNN. “We’ve outlined a number of things I think we can do at our state level, John [King, host of “State of the Union”], that will help our people have more access at lower cost, but I’m very concerned about turning this significant section of the American economy over to the federal government.”

McDonnell said that other state governors needed to “stand up” to Washington when federal policies are bad for individual states.

“I believe that a governor should stand up to Washington,” he said. “If they do things that are bad for Virginia, that are going to kill jobs or raise taxes or create new bureaucracy or hurt small business, I will be a governor that will stand up and say, that’s not good for Virginia.”

McDonnell added that he and his fellow governors, both Republicans and Democrats, knew their states best and were well-positioned to make decisions on which health reforms work – not Washington bureaucrats.

“I believe in our federal system,” he said, “that the governors, Republican and Democrat around the country, [are] closer to the people [and] can make some of these decisions better.”

A general synopsis of how the proposed healthcare legislation would be mandated upon the States can be found at the link.

Switching gears somewhat, yesterday, South Carolina GOP Senator Jim DeMint introduced what he calls the “Term Limits for All” constitutional amendment:

November 10, 2009 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) introduced an amendment to the United States Constitution that would apply term limits to all members of Congress, limiting U.S. Representatives to three terms and U.S. Senators to two terms in office. The amendment is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). As an amendment to the Constitution, it would require a two-thirds majority vote approval in the House and Senate and must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

“Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians,” said Senator DeMint. “As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power. I have come to realize that if we want to change the policies coming out of Congress, we must change the process itself. Over the last 20 years, Washington politicians have been reelected about 90% of the time because the system is heavily tilted in favor of incumbents. If we really want to put an end to business as usual, we’ve got to have new leaders coming to Washington instead of rearranging the deck chairs as the ship goes down.”

Senator Coburn added, “The best way to ensure we are truly a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, is to replace the career politicians in Washington with citizen legislators who care more about the next generation than their next election. The power of incumbency has created an almost insurmountable advantage for Washington politicians. Incumbency allows politicians to raise millions of dollars in campaign funds in exchange for earmarks. Incumbency gives Congress the power to raise money for itself – Congress just approved itself an increase of nearly $250 million from the U.S. Treasury that members will spend to promote themselves. Finally, with redistricting incumbents can choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives. Term limits is the best way to break this cycle.”

- PDF of Term Limits for All amendment
- Download Senator DeMint’s podcast on Term Limits for All –

“Some say only long-serving, seasoned elites have the skills to lead the people, but that’s exactly what we have today and how do you think it’s working out for us?” said Senator DeMint. “It wasn’t the ‘people’ who gave us a $12 trillion debt, an IRS tax code seven times longer than the Bible, over 1,700 departments of the federal government, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, $100 trillion long-term shortfall in Social Security and Medicare, the Wall Street and auto bailouts, and the pending health care takeover.

“This nation can no longer afford these entrenched men and women who enjoy lives of luxury wholly insulated from the consequences of their major policy failures.

“I want to be clear: demanding that reformers adopt self-imposed term limits is a recipe for self-defeat on this issue. We lost the battle for term limits after the 1994 Republican Contract with America because we forced our best advocates for reform to go home, while the big-spending career politicians waited them out. We must have term limits for all or term limits will never succeed. Only when we apply the same rules to all will we be able to enact vital bipartisan reforms.

“Term limits will increase legislative turnover, expand the field of candidates who run for office, and instill transparency and accountability in our public officials. By ratifying this amendment, we can end the tremendous advantage enjoyed by incumbents in Washington, break long-lasting ties to special interests and lobbyists, and transform Congress from the body of career politicians that it has become, to a chamber of true citizen legislators,” said Senator DeMint.

However, as The Washington Times notes, don’t expect the Democrats to be too thrilled with the proposal:

<”It’s a great issue to talk about, but it’s not going to happen,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic majority’s second-highest ranking leader.

Mr. Durbin said he didn’t know whether the bill would even get a vote.

Though, Sen. DeMint’s spokesman Wesley Denton said that the bill would succeed if enough people got behind it and forced Congress to bring it to a vote.

GOPUSA had a similar sentiment:

I whole-heartedly support this action. The problem is that for the Constitution to be amended, the proposed amendment must pass by two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate and then be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Thus, Congress has to first pass an amendment that would bring to an end their perks and power.

As noted in the Washington Times, “Senate leaders and longtime Washington watchdogs said Mr. DeMint’s bill had a zero chance of becoming law, mostly because of a general lack of interest and the high hurdles to amending the Constitution.”

Thus, the only way such a measure could pass is if the public got behind it. We have seen what can happen with the Tea Party movement and the 9/12 Project. Americans are more than frustrated with the federal government. Enough is enough!

It’s time to put an end to career politicians in Washington, DC. Go there, do your job, and come back home!

As I had posted back on January 20, 2009, the Supreme Court has already essentially ruled that any restrictions that go beyond the Constitution regarding the length of federal office tenure cannot be settled at the State level (from a discussion showing that States could enforce things like the presidential eligibility clause, but cannot add to what’s already laid out):

Also, a state cannot impose additional requirements on elections to federal offices–which is why Congressional term limits can only come from Congress (fat chance). In U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. v. THORNTON(1995) the Supreme Court ruled (in the usual 5-4 split, with Kennedy in the majority) that

“. . . the Constitution prohibits States from imposing congressional qualifications additional to those specifically enumerated in its text. Petitioners’ argument that States possess control over qualifications as part of the original powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment is rejected for two reasons. First, the power to add qualifications is not within the States’ pre-Tenth-Amendment “original powers,” but is a new right arising from the Constitution itself, and thus is not reserved. Second, even if the States possessed some original power in this area, it must be concluded that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby “divested” States of any power to add qualifications.”Nor can the Court agree with petitioners’ related argument that (term limits are) a permissible exercise of state power under the Elections Clause, Art. I, 4, cl. 1, to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections.” A necessary consequence of that argument is that Congress itself would have the power under the Elections Clause to “make or alter” a measure such as (term limits), a result that is unfathomable under Powell v. McCormick. Moreover, petitioners’ broad construction is fundamentally inconsistent with the Framers’ view of the Elections Clause, which was intended to grant States authority to protect the integrity and regularity of the election process by regulating election procedures, see, e.g., Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 , 733, not to provide them with license to impose substantive qualifications that would exclude classes of candidates from federal office.

While this case dealt with term limits, there really is no distinguishing facts that would allow a different decision regarding presidential primaries. The Constitution does not provide for state enforcement of the “natural-born citizen” clause, so any enforcement will have to come from Congress.

-Phil

AxXiom’s Rules for Activists

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Photo courtesy Senator DeMint’s web site

From the LibertarianRepublican blog, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has been warming up to the notion that his State could invoke the 10th Amendment as a means of dealing with the ever-so-unpopular proposed healthcare legislation at the federal level:

First it was Texas Governor Rick Perry suggesting [my link] at a Tea Party rally in Austin last Spring, that Secession might be a viable option if the Feds got out of line. Two months later, a group of Republican Legislators in Florida, introduced a bill [my link] to exempt the State from Obama’s Health Care plan. State legislatures from New Hampshire to Oklahoma joined in with Pro-Sovereignty resolutions.

Most recently at a teleconference sponsored by Americans for Property (AFP), Aug. 23, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was asked what could be done if Obama’s health care was passed. She stated:

“We’d have to see some fairly revolutionary action taken by the these states, and it’s question of whether these governors would do that…”

Now, her home state Governor is apparently responding to her call.

Governor Tim Pawlenty dipped a toe into the sovereignty movement waters when he stated on a Republican Governor’s Conference call that greater reliance on the 10th Amendment may be needed. He’s quoted, from Minn. Public Radio, Sept. 10:

“Depending on what the federal government comes out with here, asserting the 10th Amendment may be a viable option…”

MPR later reported that Pawlenty “backed off” from his original statement. But in fact, he just clarified his previous statement saying that he didn’t favor outright sucession for Minnesota. More:

“I’m not saying that we’re going to do anything unusual or abnormal. I’m just saying we’re going to remind the federal government that there’s a proper role for them and for the states,” said Pawlenty.

Here’s a small sampling of the press coverage that Gov. Pawlenty’s comments have produced (including the biased notion that somehow he’s backing off of anything he’s said):

• Pawlenty: States’ Rights To Reject Health Care Reform “A Possibility” (HuffingtonPost.com)
• Tim Pawlenty advocates state sovereignty (Politico.com)
• Pawlenty: 10th Amendment might let states sidestep health care changes (StarTribune.com)
• Emerging GOP Theme: Nullification (HuffingtonPost.com)
• GOP urges amendment while Pawlenty retreats (StarTribune.com)

Previously, I had also reported that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a story about Georgia changing its State constitution in reaction to federal healthcare legislation. Now TenthAmendmentCenter.com is reporting that FoxNews ran with this story and interviewed State Senator Chip Rogers (R-Marietta) about the proposal:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Photo courtesy The New York Times

Following up on recent reports by the TenthAmendmentCenter.com regarding States’ rights issues, Florida’s State Senate recently received a 10th Amendment Memorial bill for consideration:

Eustis, Florida – State Senator Carey Baker (R-Eustis) has introduced a memorial in the Florida Senate reaffirming the principles of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The memorial, awaiting an official Senate number, urges “Congress to honor the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and United States Supreme Court case law which limit the scope and exercise of federal power.”

“Now more than ever, state governments must exercise their Constitutional right to say no to the expansion of the federal government’s reckless deficit spending and abuse of power,” Senator Baker said. “With this resolution, our Legislature can send a message to Washington that our state’s rights must be respected.”

Baker spoke at July 4th weekend Tea Parties in Gainesville and Orlando, where he announced his sponsorship of the resolution that affirms the 10th Amendment’s provision that rights not expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Similar state sovereignty resolutions have been introduced in thirty-six other state legislatures across America. So far, seven states have had both houses of their legislature approve a sovereignty resolution, while three states have rejected them.  Two Governors, Palin of Alaska and Bredesen of Tennessee, have signed state sovereignty resolution.

Florida Groups Supporting State Sovereignty:

• The Tampa 9-12 Project
• Bay Patriots, Inc.
• Daytona Beach 9-12 Project
• Sovereignty Action Committee
• (contact us to have yours listed)

The full text of the bill can be found via the article’s referenced link.

Also, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin signed her State’s 10th Amendment resolution…

On Friday, July 10th, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27 (HJR27), sponsored by State Rep. Mike Kelly.  The resolution “claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

The House passed the resolution by a vote of 37-0 (3 not voting) and the Senate passed it by a vote of 40-0.

Six other states have had both houses of their legislature pass similar resolutions – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Louisiana – Alaska joins Tennessee as the second to have such a resolution signed by the Governor.

A GROWING MOVEMENT

Passage of this resolution appears to be part of what is now a growing state-level resistance to the federal government on various levels.   Similar 10th Amendment resolutions have been introduced in 37 states around the country, and various states are considering single-issue legislation in direct contravention to federal laws.

Most recently, the Arizona Legislature passed a measure for public approval on the 2010 state ballot that would give Arizona voters the opportunity to nullify, or opt out, of any potential national health care legislation.

Since 2007, more than two dozen states have passed legislation refusing to implement the Real ID act of 2005.  In response, the federal government has recently announced that they want to “repeal and replace” the law due to a rebellion by states.

Pending legislation in states around the country also includes preventing state law enforcement officials from enforcing federal laws, refusing federal gun regulations, refusing to send a state’s national guard to any duty other than what the constitution authorizes, legalizing marijuana for various purposes and more.

A FIRST STEP

While HJR27 is strongly-word in support of the principles of limited, constitutional government that the 10th Amendment represents, it is a Joint Resolution and does not carry with it the force of law.  But supporters say that this is an important first step to get their message out not only to grassroots supporters, but to the media, and legislators in other states as well.

The final verbiage of the signed resolution can be found via referenced link.

The issue of States’ rights and the 2nd Amendment is beginning to take center stage. In a previous posting, I had reported on a general update of where things then stood regarding recently-passed Firearms Freedom Act bills in a number of States. In another update, the TenthAmendmentCenter.com and TNGunOwners.com sites provide the reaction of the federal Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to this State-level legislation:

A line was drawn in the sand last week – a response by the Federal Government to the State of Tennessee and their assertion of sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

(Editor’s note: A similar response was sent to Montana Firearms licenses on 07-16-09 as well)

Part of a series of moves by states seeking to utilize the Tenth Amendment as a limit on Federal Power,  the Tennessee State Senate approved Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7.  The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1.

Governor Breseden allowed the bill to become law without signing.

The law states that “federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”

At the time of passage through the TN House and Senate, Judiciary Chairman Mae Beavers had this to say-

“Be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to regulate commerce contained completely within this state – enough is enough.  Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”

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:

“The letter says, in part, ‘because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.’ That is precisely what I predicted the Federal Government’s response to the Tennessee act would be.  As I told Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News’s Glenn Beck Program on June 5, 2009, federal officials don’t care about a good historical argument concerning the meaning of the Constitution.”

“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.”

The Federal Government has regularly claimed that the commerce clause of the constitution, which gives DC authority to regulate commerce between the states, gives them authority to regulate or add prohibitions on items that never cross state lines.

One notable use of the commerce clause in this manner can be found in the 2005 decision by the Supreme Court in ‘Gonzales vs. Raich’, where  the court contended that consuming one’s locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption.  They used this claim, even though at the same time they made it clear that no legal market for marijuana exists.

One key aspect of the ATF’s letter is that it was only sent out to existing Federal Firearms Licensees, those generally already in compliance with federal regulations – and who likely would not have participated in the TN Firearms Freedom act anyway, according to sources close to Tenth Amendment Center.

Ultimately what the letter represents is another move in the chess match being played out between the states and the Federal Government, the resolution of which may not be seen for quite some time.

A copy of the letter’s verbiage is available at the referenced link; the TNGunOwners.com site has a scanned image of the letter as well as plenty of individual responses.

Apparently Florida is going to add themselves to the firearms fight. Such a bill was introduced in their State’s House (to be effective October 1, 2010):

Introduced in the Florida House on July 6, 2009, the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB-21) seeks to provide “that specified firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition for personal use manufactured in state are not subject to federal law or regulation” in the State of Florida.

The bill is sponsored by Florida State Reps O’Toole and Plakon.  They follow in the path of Montana, and Tennessee who have already passed such legislation.  And they join with Utah, Texas, South Carolina and others who are considering it in an effort to limit federal regulation of guns, and specifically invoke the 9th and 10th Amendments as restrictions on federal power:

“the regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the ninth and tenth amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition”

In case you can’t get enough of the constitutional theory of federalism, here is a sampling of additional links regarding commentary on the subject:

• The Origin of Power is the People
• Is the Supreme Court Supreme?
• To Tax or Not to Tax, That is the Question
• Federal Reserve: Secrecy vs Independence
• Claiming Almost Everything is “Commerce”

-Phil

Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Friday, November 6, 2009 update:

Apparently Rep. Deal knew he was going to stir up quite the proverbial hornet’s nest by seriously suggesting that he was going to ask the President to see his birth certificate. So, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (h/t PeachPundit), the castigations are now beginning.

As you read through what I post from the article, below, I’m going to interject my own commentary into what the included public figures say, because I think most of them are seriously full of it; the idea that somehow someone is considered to be, essentially, other than rational for daring to question the President is, itself, asinine:

“I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available and it leaves many things to be desired,” Deal said in an interview Friday.

Deal’s statement came a day after he noted in an online chat that he would join other U.S. House members in writing the president and asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate.

Welcome to the club, Rep. Deal. Some of us have been questioning this man with only the image of an alleged document for more than a year because there’s got to be more that could be available regarding this man’s background.

I only wonder who these “other U.S. House members” are.

He stopped short of saying he was a proponent of the so-called “birthers” movement that has questioned the legitimacy of Obama’s citizenship.

Don’t you just love the way that the AJC editorializes via castigation those of us who are “fringe” enough (according to whom?) to question Mr. Obama’s bona fides? If the media were just as derogatory to the Left in this country, I’d otherwise shut my electronic mouth.

A spokeswoman for Obama said the White House had no comment on Deal’s statements other than what it has said in the past when refuting claims questioning Obama’s citizenship.

Nice. I wondered how they were going to initially respond. Hopefully Rep. Deal will continue to pester the great and mighty Executive branch for an otherwise very simple bit of info for which he has every right to ask (as do the rest of we, the People).

In June 2008, Obama’s campaign office released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate — a “certification of live birth” — that shows he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. Government officials in Hawaii have verified that the document is official, as have several news organizations.

Well, at least the AJC got part of this paragraph right; all that we have to date is an image of an alleged document.

However, I’m just a bit confused: the AJC then states that “[g]overnment officials in Hawaii have verified that the document is official.” Oh, really? That’s news to those of us who have been following this issue from the get-go. Where, exactly, did the Hawaiian officials actually claim that the alleged document that the blog FactCheck.org allegedly has on hand is exactly the same document that originated from the Department of Hawaii? In other words, where’s the record of the transaction?

Oh, and the “several news organizations” claim? Who the hell are you talking about? Surely you don’t mean that other news organizations merely took the image of the COLB and said, “Yep, we hereby proclaim this to be an official document,” without one single forensics investigator actually verifying the physical document?

Yet Deal and others say they still have doubts.

Uh, yes, we do.

“What I have seen — and I think it is the only thing that has been put out — is a certification of live birth, and it just does not contain the type of information that most state birth certificates would contain,” Deal said. “It obviously does not have the signature of a doctor. Most birth certificates or even certificates of live birth have those kinds of verifications.”

Bingo. He’s on the right track.

Some of Deal’s colleagues in Congress said they are disappointed and puzzled about why the Gainesville Republican is raising the citizenship issue.

Fasten your seat belts, dear readers; rough waters ahead… over 62 words found in the Constitution…

“I’m sorry to hear that Nathan, who’s a very decent person, is raising that question,” said Democratic U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Atlanta, a strong Obama supporter. “I don’t think there’s any question, any doubt, that the president was born in America, in Hawaii.” …

In Washington, Lewis said he thought it was time to end questions about Obama’s citizenship.

“This is an issue that needs to be put to rest,” he said. “I don’t believe the president of the United States of America, knowing you must be a citizen born in America, would even consider, even think of running for president,” if he were not a citizen.

I will give Rep. Lewis one point — he states his opinion and doesn’t browbeat Rep. Deal (at least in this instance) for doing what he’s doing. Yet, it’s exceptionally incomprehensible — and politically irresponsible — to make such a broad-based assumption — assumption – that anyone who would be ambitious enough to run for the presidency would simply not run, by definition, without being eligible.

Why do I say this? Because, as I’ve documented on my site — and as Justin Riggs over at YourFellowCitizen.com has done yeoman’s work — even the major political parties take the question seriously enough to make the candidate sign a self-ascribing document in which the candidate proclaims themselves to be eligible (of course, the document assumes that the person wouldn’t lie, because it doesn’t require physical documentation to back up the claim).

So, if major political parties promulgate such documentation, what in the world is Rep. Lewis doing simply assuming that a presidential candidate wouldn’t otherwise run if they weren’t eligible?

Republican gubernatorial candidate John Oxendine said he believes Obama is a legal U.S. citizen.

“Any serious adult running for governor of Georgia needs to understand that we have a responsibility to do business with the president of United States,” Oxendine said. ” Questioning his citizenship after he has been elected to the highest office in our land is disrespectful.”

Mr. Oxendine, you’re completely out of order on this issue. Even some of the vehemently (at times) opposing commenters on my site would wholeheartedly disagree with you that it’s disrespectful to question the President.

How is it disrespectful to question the President’s bona fides? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of statute of limitations on eligibility? Who are you to determine what is considered “respectful” versus “disrespectful” questioning of any elected official?

What’s more, is this to say that if you were to be elected my Governor in our great State of Georgia that individuals such as myself couldn’t question you or your actions in office?

Mr. Oxendine, perhaps you should go ahead and simply shred the Bill of Rights while you’re at it. Obviously you have no use for the First Amendment, much less Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

Ben Fry, a spokesman for Republican gubernatorial candidate Eric Johnson said, “We take the government of Hawaii at its word when they say the president is eligible to serve.”

Uh, there’s just one teensy-weensy problem with your comment, Mr. Fry: The great State of Hawaii never said a word about whether or not Mr. Obama is eligible to be President. They only ever claimed that he’s a natural born citizen, though that means absolutely nothing with respect to any legal authority on Mr. Obama’s eligibility — unless, of course, we could get the Director of Health into Court and begin questioning her for the record.

And even if the great State of Hawaii actually made such a proclamation, please do point out to me where in the Constitution it says that States are the ones responsible for enforcing the eligibility clause, with what type of documentation and to what extent such documentation is sufficient for such substantiation.

I don’t think you can do it.

Said Republican candidate Karen Handel’s spokesman Dan McLagan, “I think its pretty kooky and probably not very helpful for our water negotiations and other issues with the administration.”

I see. So, when the question is considered too weird or extreme (even though it’s completely constitutional), let’s just call the question “kooky” so we don’t have to face it head-on. Yeah — that’s exactly how I’d want my next Governor to act on a constitutional issue. Not.

Chris Carpenter, a spokesman for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Roy Barnes characterized Deal’s statements as “great silliness.”

Governor Barnes, there are probably a few reasons why you’re currently the former Governor of Georgia; let’s just leave it at that.

And I’m not leaving PeachPundit — a blog that I otherwise completely enjoy following via my RSS feeds for important news out of Georgia — out of my critique:

In all seriousness (too late?), I am pleased to see most of the candidates – and yes, Oxendine too – stand up and call crazy “crazy”. We’ve got serious issues on the table. I have no interest in watching top tier candidates allow themselves to be drawn in to discussions of birthers, secession, or other fringe causes of the day.

“Icarus,” oh “Icarus,” I do believe you’re rhetorically flying a bit too closely to the sun today; your waxed wings are melting, because I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

Let me explain something to you. A “birther,” as they’ve been pejoratively called ever since anyone has begun questioning Mr. Obama’s eligibility, is merely someone who wants to see some actual, original documentation regarding the President’s background.

Is that fringe? I fail to see the illogic of the question, considering it’s actually in the Constitution.

A “secession[ist]” is someone who actively advocates for the literal dis-integration of the American States. “Tenthers,” as the term has recently been coined, merely wish to see the 10th Amendment be upheld as a balance of power between the several States and the federal government. You know, federalism, that wonderful concept that our founding fathers gave to us and that some of us feel is rapidly slipping away. Go check out Michael Boldin’s TenthAmendmentCenter.com for a complete portfolio of postings regarding federalism, not secession. Please, educate yourself before showing yourself to be so ignorant.

Is that fringe? I fail to see the illogic of federalism — unless you want to see a completely bloated federal government operating outside the confines of the Constitution.

—-

One of the contenders for Governor in the Republican primary here in the great State of Georgia is Representative Nathan Deal. In an interesting move this morning (according to TalkingPointsMemo and AJC — oh, yes, and thanks to commenter “Geir (Gerhardt) Smith” for my h/t), the Congressman informally announced that he’s going after Mr. Obama’s birth certificate:

[He] has announced that he is signing a letter to the White House with several of his colleagues — asking for a copy of President Obama’s birth certificate.

Deal made the announcement this morning in anonline chat held by his campaign, when asked by Tom Crawford of the Georgia Report (subscription required):

[Comment From Tom Crawford]
Do you believe that Barack Obama is a native-born American citizen who is eligible to serve as president? I am asking because your comments on this issue have been a little ambiguous. I would appreciate your clearing this up.

Nathan Deal – I am joining several of my colleagues in the House in writing a letter to the President asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate so we can have an answer to this question.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted that this isn’t the first time that Rep. Deal had been asked about presidential eligibility for Mr. Obama:

Back in July, Deal was asked a similar question by Mike Stark of the liberal Firedoglake blog. The exchange outside the U.S. Capitol was caught on a Youtube video. (Deal is at :45 and at 1:20 on the video.)

In the video, Deal is asked whether opponents need some basis in fact or reality to suggest Obama is not a legitimate president. Deal responds:

“You know, the best way to do that, I think, is to produce the birth certificate and let that be the end of it. I don`t think that`s been done yet.

Rep. Deal’s spokesman followed up with TPM on the story:

Deal’s campaign spokesman Harris Blackwood confirmed the authenticity of the chat to TPM, explaining the Congressman’s comment: “There have been so many constituents, a lot of people have asked him, they ask him on the campaign trail. Let’s just get an answer, that’s all we’re saying, not suggesting anything to the contrary.”

Showing his proverbial constitutional credentials, the AJC also reported that he’s pushing for States’ rights via the 10th Amendment:

In today’s online chat, Deal also enlisted in the 10th Amendment movement, promising that if elected governor he would “reassert the role of states rights” and “reclaim the rights that are reserved to our state” under the U.S. Constitution.

While in my view it should be applauded that there is a Congressperson willing to further push the issue to conclusively establish once and for all whether or not Mr. Obama is eligible to be President, it is interesting to note that Rep. Deal is not a co-sponsor of HR1503, Rep. Bill Posey’s (R-FL) bill that would require documentation to be submitted for all future presidential candidates to establish their background information.

Recently, there has been a bit of discussion on the eligibility front between myself and various “opposition” commenters here on my site questioning that if Mr. Obama’s eligibility were truly in question, were I suggesting that there’s a major conspiracy of hundreds of players purposefully attempting to defraud the American people. Of course, my answer was an emphatic no.

Not only would my answer to such a question be no, but I think that the general political ignorance of Article 2, Section1, Clause 5 of the Constitution so escapes federal officeholders — either intentionally or no — that most of their constituents who have asked various Members, to date, about the President’s eligibility have received form letters with nearly as many different definitions of eligibility as their are Members of Congress!

There is no conspiracy theory here, in my view. Clearly, however, there continue to be questions about this President’s background, because we have nothing. Yes, we have an image of an alleged Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth that is alleged to have been procured by the Obama campaign back in 2007. However, to date, there is neither no receipt for the transaction (after all, States don’t just give this information out to legitimate requesters for nothing!), nor has anyone of a forensics background actually physically inspected the document.

Yet, even beyond this document, the American public has absolutely nothing else in hand that substantiates who this President is. It truly is as if America has elected someone that practically came out of nowhere to be the holder of the highest political office in the land. Given the current political climate in Washington, D.C. today, for me, that doesn’t sit too well.

Again, there is nothing wrong in asking the question. In fact, I would wager that it is wrong not to, precisely for the fact that it is a quintessentially constitutional issue. And, as such, I am glad that Rep. Deal is taking the initiative — despite the fact that he may be using this as a political move in the GOP gubernatorial primary — to specifically ask the question of the President.

After all — Rep. Deal does have standing to do so!

Update:

H/t to AudacityOfHypocrisy, a former speechwriter to President George H. W. Bush (bio below), Mr. Michael Johns, wrote in September of this year that Mr. Obama should “Release the Birth Documents:”

It is difficult to pinpoint exactly when the dangerous disregard for our nation’s founding legal document began. It certainly predates this administration. But the culture upon which it rests might be best exemplified in the apparent Congressional and media group think that our 44th President holds no obligation to respond to questions about his Constitutional eligibility, under Article II, Section I of the Constitution, to hold the office to which he ran and was elected. This Constitutional provision states unequivocally that no person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President.

Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen of the United States? Probably. But because Obama is going to great lengths to conceal the documents that would settle this issue definitively, it is impossible to say for sure. Since October 2008, Obama has spent in excess of $1.35 million in legal fees to file protective and privacy motions in at least eight federal lawsuits to avoid releasing the documents–his mother’s hospital admission record, his Hawaii certificate of live birth, his educational records during his four years of residence in Indonesia, his Indonesian citizen status at that time and the time of his subsequent reentry to the U.S., and his college and law school admission records–that likely would definitively establish his Constitutional eligibility. Congress, the media, and even many Obama opponents, meanwhile, have failed to exert any pressure on him to halt his pro-active legal measures to avoid disclosure of these documents.

Quite obviously, the question of a President’s Constitutional eligibility is serious business. It was serious business when, in February 2008, The New York Times called into question Senator John McCain’s eligibility for the office because McCain was born on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone, which was then under U.S. control. “It is certainly not a frivolous issue,” The Times quoted Atlanta attorney Jill Pryor as saying at the time. The questions also were serious enough for the U.S. Senate to investigate them, with the Senate ultimately concluding in a unanimous vote that the U.S. administration of the Panama Canal Zone at that time meant that McCain was indeed a natural born citizen and eligible for the Presidency. …

Let me stipulate that, despite following this issue for a year, I am utterly unable to answer that question. But logic dictates that one would not expend in excess of a million dollars in legal fees, as Obama has done, knowing that the only likely result is that a certain percentage of the American people will view such efforts as non-transparent, or even malfeasant. Conversely, it also is wrong to conclude, in the absence of these documents, that Obama has necessarily misrepresented anything about his birth location or Constitutional eligibility, as some critics of Obama’s concealment of these documents continue to do. …

The most important point is this: No national interest is served by permitting these important questions to linger and persist. To settle them, Obama should cease blocking release of the documents sought by the plaintiffs in the various federal cases over his eligibility. And going forward, it seems reasonable to insist that our nation’s Federal Election Commission (FEC), which is charged with regulatory oversight of Presidential elections, require Presidential candidates to submit, along with their candidacy filing, the documents that clearly establish their natural-born eligibility for the office. Americans’ confidence in our Constitutionally-rooted democratic political system requires no less.

Apparently Mr. Johns similarly agrees with Rep. Posey that, practically speaking, the FEC ought to be required to be the depository for background information supporting candidate eligibility.

Do tell — what would be so wrong with that?

Mr. John’s bio:

Michael Johns is a health care executive, former White House and U.S. federal government official, and a conservative policy analyst and writer. In his industry capacities, Michael has held executive management responsibilities in several components of the U.S. and global health care industry. In addition to his extensive private sector career, Michael has served as a White House speechwriter to President George H. W. Bush, a senior aide to former New Jersey Governor and 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean (R-NJ), and a senior United States Senate aide to U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Michael began his career as a policy analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation and as an editor of the foundation’s scholarly magazine, Policy Review. Michael has written for The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor, National Review, CBS HealthWatch, and other national media. He has appeared on PBS, CNBC, C-SPAN, Al Jazeera, Fox Morning News, and other networks. Michael is a graduate of the University of Miami, where he majored in economics and graduated with honors.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

• The background:
  • Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
  • Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
  • Obama Citizenship Facts
  • What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate
• The questions:
  • Leo Donofrio Affirms FightTheSmears.com’s Obama Citizenship Admission
  • Fallible FactCheck.org: TheBirthers, Donofrio Cause Change on Obama Citizenship
  • Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
  • Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
  • The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
  • Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Photo courtesy ChattahBox

The TenthAmendmentCenter.com had been reporting that Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal (D) transmitted a memo to his State’s Legislative Management Council on July 28 to join with other States in passing a 10th Amendment resolution:

Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal today transmitted the following memorandum and proposed resolution on state sovereignty to the Wyoming Legislature’s Management Council. 
(h/t Mike Johnson, EverythingCody.com)

Freudenthal, a Democrat, was previously a US attorney for the Clinton administration, and is currently serving his 2nd term as Governor of Wyoming.  He endorsed Barack Obama for president and is commonly referred to as one of the most popular governors in the country.

MEMORANDUM

To: Management Council Members
From: Dave Freudenthal, Governor
Date: July 28, 2009
Re: Sovereignty Resolution

As you know, individual states have been adopting Sovereignty Resolutions over the past few years.  Such resolutions have been considered by the Wyoming Legislature over the years as well. Representative Illoway is working on one for this session.

The attached version expands slightly on the versions currently circulating.  The resolution includes a list of specific federal laws and a reference to the idea that retaining lands in federal ownership runs afoul of the “equal footing” doctrine.  I am enclosing a possible resolution for your consideration.  Clearly this is ultimately a legislative prerogative.

From time to time we all wonder whether sending resolutions to Washington, DC really does any good.  On the other hand, it’s nice to at least get our view on the record.

See the referenced link for the drafted language.

In an attempt to further its rights as a State and, more specifically, uphold the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, the great State of Michigan introduced its own Firearms Freedom Act on August 11:

Introduced in the Michigan House on August 11, 2009, the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB-5232) seeks “to make certain findings regarding intrastate commerce; to prohibit federal regulation of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition involved purely in intrastate commerce in [the State of Michigan]; to provide for certain exceptions to federal regulation; and to establish certain manufacturing requirements.”

The bill was authored by Rep. Phillip Pavlov and currently has 44 co-sponsors.

While the HB5232’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government.  It specifically states:

The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under amendments IX and X of the constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

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.

Recently, the ATF chimed in with their views on such legislation, though advocates of firearms protections take a different view:

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 http://www.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.

Among other areas where some States have a beef with federal laws include the health care front, where Arizona has recently passed a ballot initiative for 2010 where voters will decide whether nor not Arizonans must participate in a given health care plan.

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Originally it was reported that the great State of Arizona passed legislation meant to be a bulwark against nationalized health care. At the referenced link, I briefly discussed how it’s important to revive the age-old concept of federalism on any given issue that affects us nationally in order to raise the question: Does this issue need to be addressed solely at the federal level, or are we going to allow States to have a say in the debate?

Next, a concerned citizen sent me an email showing that the same State is going up against federal efforts to enforce climate change rules (via AZStarNet.com):

The state Senate voted Monday, 19-10, to bar the Department of Environmental Quality from enacting or enforcing any new rules designed to deal with climate change.

Senate Bill 1147 specifically would block the rules adopted by DEQ last year to set emission standards for new vehicles for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. That measure was pushed through by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano over the objections of automobile manufacturers.

It also would halt further work on any sort of “cap and trade” system of greenhouse gases, which would set new limits on emissions from industrial sources such as power plants. Electric utilities have been at the forefront of fighting this proposal, claiming higher costs.

The measure now goes to the Arizona House of Representatives for consideration.

The full text of bill SB1147 can be found here.

Via the TenthAmendmentCenter.com, the great State of Florida has introduced a 10th Amendment memorial…

Florida State Represenatives Workman and Plakon, along with co-sponsors Dorworth, Eisnaugle, Kelly, Precourt, and Tobia introduced House Memorial 19 (HM19), which “Urges Congress to honor provisions of U. S. Constitution & U. S. Supreme Court case law which limit scope & exercise of federal power.”  (h/t David Reid)

The goal of the memorial is to serve “as a notice and a demand to the Federal Government…to cease and desist, effective immediately, from issuing mandates that are beyond the scope of [their] constitutionally delegated powers.”

Florida is now the 37th state where such a resolution has been introduced.  So far, seven states have had both houses of their legislature approve a sovereignty resolution, while three states have rejected them. …

Florida Groups Supporting State Sovereignty:

• The Tampa 9-12 Project
• Bay Patriots, Inc.

A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.

-Phil