For the past few days, I’ve received loads of emails urging me to get active regarding the healthcare vote – most of which had a subject line similar to: “Last Chance to Stop National Healthcare!”

Well, if you believe the only way to protect your rights is by begging federal politicians to do what you want, then these emails are certainly right. The vote went as expected, and so will the next.

So if you think marching on D.C. or calling your Representatives, or threating to “throw the bums out” in 2010 or 2012 or 20-whatever, is going to further the cause of the Constitution and your liberty – you might as well get your shackles on now. Your last chance has come and gone.

But, those of you who visit this site regularly already know that the Senate’s health care vote is far from the end of things – and you also know that even when it goes into effect (which I assume some version will), it’s still not the end of the road for your freedom.

The real way to resist DC is not by begging politicians and judges in Washington to allow us to exercise our rights…it’s to exercise our rights whether they want to give us “permission” to or not.

Nullification – state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws – is the way forward.

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 that state is concerned.

It’s peaceful, effective, and has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been invoked in support of free speech, in opposition to war and fugitive slave laws, and more. Read more on this history here.

Regarding nullification and health care, there’s already a growing movement right now. Led by Arizona, voters in a number of states may get a chance to approve State Constitutional Amendments in 2010 that would effectively ban national health care in their states. Our sources here at the Tenth Amendment Center indicate to us that we should expect to see 20-25 states consider such legislation in 2010.

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

For example, 13 states are already defying federal marijuana prohibition, and the federal government is having such a hard time dealing with it that the Obama administration recently announced that they would no longer prioritize enforcement in states that have medical marijuana laws.

Better yet, in the last 2+ years more than 20 states have been able to effectively prevent the Real ID Act of 2005 from being implemented. How did they do that? They passed laws and resolutions refusing to comply with it. And today, it’s effectively null and void without ever being repealed by Congress or challenged in court.

While the Obama administration would like to revive it under a different name, the reality is still there – with massive state-level resistance, the federal government can be pushed back inside its constitutional box. Issue by issue, law by law, the best way to change the federal government is by resisting it on a state level.

That’s nullification at work.

Over the years, wise men and women warned us that the Constitution would never enforce itself. The time is long overdue for people to start recognizing this fact, and bring that enforcement closer to home.

The bottom line? If you want to make real change; if you want to really do something for liberty and for the Constitution…focus on local activism and your state governments.

Thomas Jefferson would be proud!

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

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

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

FREEDOM TO PARTICIPATE

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

It states:

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

NULLIFICATION: A HISTORY LESSON

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

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

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

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

A MODERN NULLIFICATION MOVEMENT

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

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

HOWEVER WE CHOOSE

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

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

REAL ID AS THE BLUEPRINT?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

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.

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

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Supporters say the growth of such a movement is long overdue.

“For far too long elected officials and unelected bureaucrats at the federal level have passively forgotten or actively neglected the Tenth Amendment that guarantees rights not enumerated in the Constitution be left to the individual states,” said Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer, who introduced an FFA in his state. “The willful disregard of the Tenth Amendment in relation to a citizen’s right to bear arms isn’t the only constitutional infringement that we should be worried about, but it is one that has been singled out by the new administration.”

“Enough is enough,” urged Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers. “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.”

LITIGATION

In October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

Even the most ardent supporters suggest that the real test will come if the federal courts rule against the FFA. Will they give up at that point, or will they follow in the footsteps of medical marijuana activists around the country?

The latter faced down nearly the entire federal apparatus – federal agencies who didn’t recognize state law, countless federal raids and arrests, and a Supreme Court that ruled against their cause in 2005. Even with such stacked odds, they persisted in their state-level efforts, and today, enough states have medical marijuana laws that the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to oppose them.

Only time will tell if gun rights activists have the same courage.

Already, four states are considering similar amendments, and more than 15 may see them introduced in the 2010 legislative session.

Writes Senator Pilcher-Cook:

These last few months have made it abundantly clear to us — it is urgent to stand up now to protect our heath care in Kansas.

If federal legislation is passed, ordering government to give free health care (or perceived to be free), there will be an unlimited demand that even the government will not be able to meet. Rationing comes next — government-run health care cannot supply all citizens with the health care they desire, which results in the federal government making the decisions about when and where to deny individual requests for health care.

I am dedicated to:

• Preserving the freedom of Kansans to provide for their health care.
• Safeguarding the liberty of Kansans from any federal government action, which would coerce participation in a health care system.
• Defending the independence of Kansans to pay directly for health care services without penalty.

Here’s an excerpt of the proposed amendments’ text:

Article 16. — HEALTH CARE

1. Health care.

(a) To preserve the freedom of Kansans to provide for their health care:

1. A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system.
2. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services.A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services or shall not be disqualified or otherwise excluded from participation in any health care system.

(b) Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.

(c) This section does not:

1. Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide.
2. Affect which health care services are permitted by law.
3. Prohibit care provided pursuant to the provisions relating to workers compensation.
4. Prohibit care provided pursuant to the provisions relating to state employee benefit programs.
5. Affect laws or rules in effect as of August 1, 2009.
6. Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing or penalizing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

(d) For the purposes of this section:

1. “Compel” includes penalties or fines.
2. “Direct payment or pay directly” means payment for lawful health care services without a public or private third party, not including an employer, paying for any portion of the service.
3. “Health care system” means any public or private entity whose function or purpose is the management of, processing of, enrollment of individuals for or payment for, in full or in part, health care services or health care data or health care information for its participants.
4. “Lawful health care services” means any health-related service or treatment to the extent that the service or treatment is permitted or not prohibited by law or regulation that may be provided by persons or businesses otherwise permitted to offer such services.
5. “Penalties or fines” means any civil or criminal penalty or fine, tax, salary or wage withholding or surcharge or any named fee with a similar effect established by law or rule by a government established, created or controlled agency that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.

Take this common view of the preamble:

The entire history of the legal system supports the notion that the material in the preamble to the constitution lays out what the legitimate functions of the Federal government are.

I’d be interested in knowing what court rulings this blogger was referring to, because Constitutionally, that statement couldn’t be more wrong.

The preamble lays out the intentions or the reasons for the Constitution.  It does not grant one ounce of power to the federal government.

All the “legitimate functions” of the federal government – which, according to the Founders would fulfill the intentions of the preamble – are in the Constitution itself.

The short of it? While the Preamble does refer to the “general Welfare,” promoting it is limited to those powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.

General:

1. Comprehending many species or individuals; not special.
3. Not restrained by narrow or distinctive limitations
5. Public; comprising the whole

Welfare:

1. Happiness; success; prosperity

Clearly, these definitions, Constitutionally-speaking, are far different than what the politicians and pundits tell us. The “general Welfare” clause, as stated in the Tenth Amendment Center’s 10-4 Pledge for the Constitution, was actually meant as a limit on power – not an excuse to expand it:

The phrase, “general Welfare,” in Article I, Section 8 does not authorize Congress to enact any laws it claims are in the “general Welfare” of the United States. The phrase sets forth the requirement that all laws passed by Congress in Pursuance of the enumerated powers of the Constitution shall also be in the general Welfare of the United States. This was affirmed by James Madison when he wrote: “With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

And now, Ohio joins them.

According to our friends at OhioFreeState.com, Ohio State Senators Grendell and Jones have introduced Senate Joint Resolution & (SJR7).

The resolution proposes:

“to enact Section 43 of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Ohio to prohibit a law or rule from compelling a person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.”

If passed by the Ohio legislature, the proposal will go directly to Ohio voters for their approval:

If adopted by a majority of the electors voting on this proposal at a special election held February 2, 2010, Section 43 of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Ohio shall take effect immediately.

The resolution in Arizona (HCR2014) has already passed both the House and Senate, and in 2010, Arizona voters will be the final voice on their proposed Constitutional Amendment.

In Florida and Michigan, similar resolutions have been introduced, but have yet to have formal hearing or debates.

Legislators in GA and LA announced that they’ll be introducing similar resolutions in the 2010 legislative session. And sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center indicate that more than 15 states will do the same in 2010.

Click here to read the full text of SJR7

As far as the ATF is concerned, the words in the Constitution don’t mean what the Founders said they mean.  They mean what the 9 unelected judges on the Supreme Court say they mean.  Well, until they change their mind, that is.

This year, Montana and Tennessee passed the “Firearms Freedom Act” – which under state law exempts firearms, parts and ammunition from federal regulation under the “interstate commerce clause” as long as they’re made in state, and sold in state.  That is, as long as they never enter interstate commerce.

The ATF sent a stern letter to all license holders in both states this year – stating their position that the state law is invalid.    Yesterday, a report in the Memphis Commercial Appeal gives us a little more insight into the ATF’s position:

But ATF Nashville Special Agent-in-Charge James M. Cavanaugh said several U.S. Supreme Court rulings have upheld the federal gun laws. “The Constitution says the Supreme Court interprets the law. The ATF hasn’t ruled this, the Supreme Court has, and we’re a law enforcement agency.”

But wait, there’s more.

“It’s analogous to a speed limit. If the speed limit on the interstate is set at 70, a city along the interstate can’t come along and say there is no speed limit on the interstate through our city. The highway patrol could still enforce the speed limit,” he said.

Seems to me that this ATF thug thinks that state and federal government have the same relationship as city and state government.    Or, maybe he thinks of states as just big counties – and he’s part of the nationwide law enforcement.  Either way, they certainly don’t believe that the 10th Amendment reserves powers “to the States respectively, or to the People.”

My big question is this – I wonder, does the ATF swear an oath to the Constitution, or to the Supreme Court?  And more importantly, who in this country is sovereign – we the People, or the Court?

If it’s the latter, we might as well call them the American Mullahs – an unelected dictatorship.

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.

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

A proposed State Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010, and up to 10 states may consider similar Amendment proposals next session.

While some advocates and legal theorists concede that a 10th Amendment federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.

In the past 2 years, nearly two dozen state legislatures passed resolutions and laws refusing to implement the 2005 Real ID Act. Because of this, and without congressional repeal, The Bush-era law is effectively null and void.

Some advocates of these efforts say it doesn’t matter whether or not the federal government agrees, or even if it threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma. Gary Marbut, author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, 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.“

Whether or not state legislators have the backbone to resist if federal officials strongly disagree remains to be seen. But either way, as nullification efforts spread, it points to a growing state-level rebellion to the federal government.