Federal nullification efforts mounting in states, A state's rights article by David A. Lieb of the Associated Press
Imagine the scenario: A federal agent attempts to arrest someone for illegally selling a machine gun. Instead, the federal agent is arrested — charged in a state court with the crime of enforcing federal gun laws.
Farfetched? Not as much as you might think.
The scenario would become conceivable if legislation passed by Missouri's Republican-led Legislature is signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.
The Missouri legislation is perhaps the most extreme example of a states' rights movement that has been spreading across the nation. States are increasingly adopting laws that purport to nullify federal laws — setting up intentional legal conflicts, directing local police not to enforce federal laws and, in rare cases, even threatening criminal charges for federal agents who dare to do their jobs.
An Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver's licenses. The recent trend began in Democratic leaning California with a 1996 medical marijuana law and has proliferated lately in Republican strongholds like Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback this spring became the first to sign a measure threatening felony charges against federal agents who enforce certain firearms laws in his state.
Some states, such as Montana and Arizona, have said "no" to the feds again and again — passing states' rights measures on all four subjects examined by the AP — despite questions about whether their "no" carries any legal significance.
"It seems that there has been an uptick in nullification efforts from both the left and the right," said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in constitutional law.
Yet "the law is clear — the supremacy clause (of the U.S. Constitution) says specifically that the federal laws are supreme over contrary state laws, even if the state doesn't like those laws," Winkler added. The fact that U.S. courts have repeatedly upheld federal laws over conflicting state ones hasn't stopped some states from flouting those federal laws — sometimes successfully.
About 20 states now have medical marijuana laws allowing people to use pot to treat chronic pain and other ailments — despite a federal law that still criminalizes marijuana distribution and possession. Ceding ground to the states, President Barack Obama's administration has made it known to federal prosecutors that it wasn't worth their time to target those people.
Federal authorities have repeatedly delayed implementation of the 2005 Real ID Act, an anti-terrorism law that set stringent requirements for photo identification cards to be used to board commercial flights or enter federal buildings. The law has been stymied, in part, because about half the state legislatures have opposed its implementation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
About 20 states have enacted measures challenging Obama's 2010 health care laws, many of which specifically reject the provision mandating that most people have health insurance or face tax penalties beginning in 2014.
After Montana passed a 2009 law declaring that federal firearms regulations don't apply to guns made and kept in that state, eight other states have enacted similar laws. Gun activist Gary Marbut said he crafted the Montana measure as a foundation for a legal challenge to the federal power to regulate interstate commerce under the U.S. Constitution. His lawsuit was dismissed by a trial judge but is now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The states created this federal monster, and so it's time for the states to get their monster on a leash," said Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that local police could not be compelled to carry out provisions of a federal gun control law. But some states are now attempting to take that a step further by asserting that certain federal laws can't even be enforced by federal authorities.
A new Kansas law makes it a felony for a federal agent to attempt to enforce laws on guns made and owned in Kansas. A similar Wyoming law, passed in 2010, made it a misdemeanor. The Missouri bill also would declare it a misdemeanor crime but would apply more broadly to all federal gun laws and regulations — past, present, or future — that "infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms."
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter in late April to the Kansas governor warning that the federal government is willing to go to court over the new law.
"Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities," Holder wrote.
Federal authorities in the western district of Missouri led the nation in prosecutions for federal weapons offenses through the first seven months of the 2013 fiscal year, with Kansas close behind, according to a data clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
Felons illegally possessing firearms is the most common charge nationally. But the Missouri measure sets it sights on nullifying federal firearms registrations and, among other things, a 1934 law that imposes a tax on transferring machine guns or silencers. Last year, the federal government prosecuted 83 people nationally for unlawful possession of machine guns.
So what would happen if a local prosecutor actually charges a federal agent for doing his or her job?
"They're going to have problems if they do it — there's no doubt about it," said Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based entity that promotes states' rights. "There's no federal court in the country that's going to say that a state can pull this off."
Yet states may never need to prosecute federal agents in order to make their point.
If enough states resist, "it's going to be very difficult for the federal government to force their laws down our throats," Boldin said.
Missouri's governor has not said whether he will sign or veto the bill nullifying federal gun laws. Meanwhile, thousands of people have sent online messages to the governor's office about the legislation.
Signing the measure "will show other states how to resist the tyranny of federal bureaucrats who want to rob you of your right to self-defense," said one message, signed by Jim and Arlena Sowash, who own a gun shop in rural Stover, Mo.
Others urged a veto.
"Outlandish bills like this — completely flouting our federal system — make Missouri the laughingstock of the nation," said a message written by Ann Havelka, of the Kansas City suburb of Gladstone.
Cowboys and the Tea Party political movement have a lot on common. Both believe in individual responsibility; judging a man by his actions not words; and, both are disgusted with government intrusions into our lives and particularly our God given rights.
Showing posts with label States Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label States Rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Saturday, November 24, 2012
States Moving Forward on Nullification
Nullification Goes Mainstream; States Defy Washington on Drugs and Health Care, from an article by John Rubino on Dollar Collapse.com, November 9, 2012. Read original article here.
This is a long, by powerful article which will undoubtabley spur debate over States Rights and the issue whether we are still a Constitutional Republic or just a Democracy ruled by special interest groups....aka the George Soros' sponsored anti-American causes and the Labor Unions. As the federal government gradually assimilates the rest of the country, a few states have begun to fight back. From the Kansas City Star:
No state-run health insurance exchanges in Missouri or Kansas
Missouri will be unable to implement a key provision of federal health care law, Gov.Jay Nixon announced Thursday.
Meantime, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownbacksays he won’t support an application from Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger to establish a state-federal health insurance marketplace.
That means it will be up to the federal government to establish health insurance exchanges in Missouri and Kansas. The exchanges are designed to be online marketplaces where individuals and small businesses can compare and buy private insurance plans.
As part of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, the states face a Nov. 16 deadline to notify the federal government if they want to run their own insurance exchange. They must be open for business by 2014. When states do not open their own, the federal government will step in and set up an exchange.
“Obamacare,” Brownback said in a news release, “is an overreach by Washington and (Kansans) have rejected the state’s participation. … We will not benefit from it and implementing it could cost Kansas taxpayers millions of dollars.”
This kind of rebellion has deep historical roots. From the American Thinker blog:
The Nullification Movement
One thing overlooked in the uproar surrounding the election is the nullification of federal narcotics law in Washington state and Colorado. If these laws are allowed to stand without challenge from Eric Holder’s Justice Department, then the green light is on for nullifying any federal law — including ObamaCare.
Nullification is based upon the principle that is best described in the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
This simple statement asserts that no government may impose its will upon the people without their consent and that if the people make it known that they do not consent then the imposition is nullified. The very first time that a nullification resolution was passed in our history was the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 to nullify the Alien and Sedition acts. The author of this resolution was Thomas Jefferson, who had to write the resolution in secret because if it were known that he was opposed to these acts, he would have been imprisoned, even though he was vice president at the time.
Jefferson had help from another of the founding fathers, James Madison. Madison wrote the Virginia Resolution, which nullified the Alien and Seditions Acts in Virginia. These nullification resolutions were never tested in court since in the next presidential election Jefferson became president, repealed the laws and pardoned all those who had been imprisoned under the Alien and Seditions acts. The idea of nullification became popular again in the decade leading up to the War Between the States as many northern states nullified fugitive slave laws.
Now two western states are using the principle of nullification against federal narcotics laws to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Both Colorado and Washington had legalization measures on the ballot, and the measures passed. But Kevin Sabet, the former Obama administration’s drug czar, stated:
“This is a symbolic victory for advocates, but it will be short-lived. They are facing an uphill battle with implementing this, in the face of presidential opposition and in the face of federal enforcement opposition.”
But as of yet, agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency have not made a show of force by kicking in the doors of local head shops and hauling shopkeepers off to jail.
If the federal government does take action, it will likely be via lawsuit. They will argue the Supremacy Clause of the constitution. But the Supremacy Clause is not a slam dunk as some would have you think. In Federalist Paper #46 titled, “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared,” Madison comments on the idea of supremacy:
“These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone….”
Ultimately, if the federal government loses, then nullification will be used to do away with many overreaching federal laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, which has shut down agriculture in California, or to the Clean Air Act, which threatens to cause rolling blackouts across the nation.
But Colorado and Washington are not alone in the nullification movement; six other states are challenging federal law. Alabama, Montana, and Wyoming all passed measures guaranteeing health-care freedom, and Massachusetts approved a measure to legalize marijuana for medicinal use.
Last spring, Virginia passed legislation prohibiting state and local agencies from cooperating with any federal attempt to exercise indefinite detention without due process under the National Defense Authorization Act.
Idaho’s Governor, C.L. “Butch” Otter, signed the Health Freedom Act into law which essentially nullifies the Affordable Care Act.
The nullification movement is alive and well, and growing exponentially, and as a result the beltway bandits may see their power greatly diminished.
Some thoughts
Most non-libertarians will like some of these nullification moves and abhor others. Conservatives hate the idea of legal weed, for instance, and liberals can’t tolerate states running their own health care systems. In other words, both sides of the current US political establishment are all for a big, intrusive central government as long as it serves their ends, but dead set against it when it serves their ideological opponents. This philosophical, um, flexibility is what has allowed Washington to grow so steadily. When republicans are in charge, the powers of the federal police state grow. When democrats take over, the welfare state expands. Neither has the political capital to undo the other’s expansion, so federal power continues to metastasize.
Cowboys and Tea Parties comment: The idea that "When republicans are in charge, the powers of the federal police state grow" is not true. Look that what Obama has done and wants to do to increase the Government's Police and Security powers,.....the NDAA allowing the military to detain citizens without due process,....wanting to hire 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce Obamacare and other regulations that he declared unconstitutionally through executive order rather than through the legislative process. Hey, here's a clue - it called the Legislature for a reason!! Allowing Eric Holder's Justice Department to arm Mexican Drug Cartels with thousands of weapons. No! It's not the conservatives who are increasing the police state,.....it's the Socialists who are currently in power.
But now this process has begun to work in reverse. Liberal states are trying to push the feds out of the realms of drugs and sexual behavior, while conservative states are trying to reassert their dominance in economics. The result might be an irregular but steady erosion of federal power.
Cowboys and Tea Parties comment: The erosion of federal power is a good thing when the federal government acts unconstitutionally and against the will of and best interests of the People.
Very few dictators go down without a fight, however, so Washington might decide to make an example of rebellious states by asserting federal supremacy in the courts and then backing up favorable rulings with legal sanctions. Will it succeed or backfire? Who knows, but it will almost certainly energize the libertarian movement that Ron Paul helped create – which would be both educational and entertaining. So by all means, let nullification debate begin.
This is a long, by powerful article which will undoubtabley spur debate over States Rights and the issue whether we are still a Constitutional Republic or just a Democracy ruled by special interest groups....aka the George Soros' sponsored anti-American causes and the Labor Unions. As the federal government gradually assimilates the rest of the country, a few states have begun to fight back. From the Kansas City Star:
No state-run health insurance exchanges in Missouri or Kansas
Missouri will be unable to implement a key provision of federal health care law, Gov.Jay Nixon announced Thursday.
Meantime, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownbacksays he won’t support an application from Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger to establish a state-federal health insurance marketplace.
That means it will be up to the federal government to establish health insurance exchanges in Missouri and Kansas. The exchanges are designed to be online marketplaces where individuals and small businesses can compare and buy private insurance plans.
As part of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, the states face a Nov. 16 deadline to notify the federal government if they want to run their own insurance exchange. They must be open for business by 2014. When states do not open their own, the federal government will step in and set up an exchange.
“Obamacare,” Brownback said in a news release, “is an overreach by Washington and (Kansans) have rejected the state’s participation. … We will not benefit from it and implementing it could cost Kansas taxpayers millions of dollars.”
This kind of rebellion has deep historical roots. From the American Thinker blog:
The Nullification Movement
One thing overlooked in the uproar surrounding the election is the nullification of federal narcotics law in Washington state and Colorado. If these laws are allowed to stand without challenge from Eric Holder’s Justice Department, then the green light is on for nullifying any federal law — including ObamaCare.
Nullification is based upon the principle that is best described in the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
This simple statement asserts that no government may impose its will upon the people without their consent and that if the people make it known that they do not consent then the imposition is nullified. The very first time that a nullification resolution was passed in our history was the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 to nullify the Alien and Sedition acts. The author of this resolution was Thomas Jefferson, who had to write the resolution in secret because if it were known that he was opposed to these acts, he would have been imprisoned, even though he was vice president at the time.
Jefferson had help from another of the founding fathers, James Madison. Madison wrote the Virginia Resolution, which nullified the Alien and Seditions Acts in Virginia. These nullification resolutions were never tested in court since in the next presidential election Jefferson became president, repealed the laws and pardoned all those who had been imprisoned under the Alien and Seditions acts. The idea of nullification became popular again in the decade leading up to the War Between the States as many northern states nullified fugitive slave laws.
Now two western states are using the principle of nullification against federal narcotics laws to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Both Colorado and Washington had legalization measures on the ballot, and the measures passed. But Kevin Sabet, the former Obama administration’s drug czar, stated:
“This is a symbolic victory for advocates, but it will be short-lived. They are facing an uphill battle with implementing this, in the face of presidential opposition and in the face of federal enforcement opposition.”
But as of yet, agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency have not made a show of force by kicking in the doors of local head shops and hauling shopkeepers off to jail.
If the federal government does take action, it will likely be via lawsuit. They will argue the Supremacy Clause of the constitution. But the Supremacy Clause is not a slam dunk as some would have you think. In Federalist Paper #46 titled, “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared,” Madison comments on the idea of supremacy:
“These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone….”
Ultimately, if the federal government loses, then nullification will be used to do away with many overreaching federal laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, which has shut down agriculture in California, or to the Clean Air Act, which threatens to cause rolling blackouts across the nation.
But Colorado and Washington are not alone in the nullification movement; six other states are challenging federal law. Alabama, Montana, and Wyoming all passed measures guaranteeing health-care freedom, and Massachusetts approved a measure to legalize marijuana for medicinal use.
Last spring, Virginia passed legislation prohibiting state and local agencies from cooperating with any federal attempt to exercise indefinite detention without due process under the National Defense Authorization Act.
Idaho’s Governor, C.L. “Butch” Otter, signed the Health Freedom Act into law which essentially nullifies the Affordable Care Act.
The nullification movement is alive and well, and growing exponentially, and as a result the beltway bandits may see their power greatly diminished.
Some thoughts
Most non-libertarians will like some of these nullification moves and abhor others. Conservatives hate the idea of legal weed, for instance, and liberals can’t tolerate states running their own health care systems. In other words, both sides of the current US political establishment are all for a big, intrusive central government as long as it serves their ends, but dead set against it when it serves their ideological opponents. This philosophical, um, flexibility is what has allowed Washington to grow so steadily. When republicans are in charge, the powers of the federal police state grow. When democrats take over, the welfare state expands. Neither has the political capital to undo the other’s expansion, so federal power continues to metastasize.
Cowboys and Tea Parties comment: The idea that "When republicans are in charge, the powers of the federal police state grow" is not true. Look that what Obama has done and wants to do to increase the Government's Police and Security powers,.....the NDAA allowing the military to detain citizens without due process,....wanting to hire 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce Obamacare and other regulations that he declared unconstitutionally through executive order rather than through the legislative process. Hey, here's a clue - it called the Legislature for a reason!! Allowing Eric Holder's Justice Department to arm Mexican Drug Cartels with thousands of weapons. No! It's not the conservatives who are increasing the police state,.....it's the Socialists who are currently in power.
But now this process has begun to work in reverse. Liberal states are trying to push the feds out of the realms of drugs and sexual behavior, while conservative states are trying to reassert their dominance in economics. The result might be an irregular but steady erosion of federal power.
Cowboys and Tea Parties comment: The erosion of federal power is a good thing when the federal government acts unconstitutionally and against the will of and best interests of the People.
Very few dictators go down without a fight, however, so Washington might decide to make an example of rebellious states by asserting federal supremacy in the courts and then backing up favorable rulings with legal sanctions. Will it succeed or backfire? Who knows, but it will almost certainly energize the libertarian movement that Ron Paul helped create – which would be both educational and entertaining. So by all means, let nullification debate begin.
Friday, July 16, 2010
States Rights and the 17th Amendment
I think you'll enjoy watching this powerful presentation sent to classical music on the subject of States Rights and Repealing the 17th Amendment.
A movement exists that calls for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, generally opposing it on grounds of federalism (States' rights) and because of the Amendment taking away too much power from the states. Proponents of repeal have also accused Senators of being hostage to special interests.
Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution reads: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof...."
The 17th Amendment altered the language to read: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof...." By substituting the words "elected" and "people" for "chosen" and "legislature," the 17th Amendment significantly shifted the delicate balance of power between state and national government. The drafters of the Constitution as composed in 1787, considered this balance fundamental to the perpetuation of our new republic.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote often in The Federalist of the sacred sovereignty of the states. In Federalist No. 39, he wrote, "Each state, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act."
You decide.
A movement exists that calls for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, generally opposing it on grounds of federalism (States' rights) and because of the Amendment taking away too much power from the states. Proponents of repeal have also accused Senators of being hostage to special interests.
Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution reads: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof...."
The 17th Amendment altered the language to read: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof...." By substituting the words "elected" and "people" for "chosen" and "legislature," the 17th Amendment significantly shifted the delicate balance of power between state and national government. The drafters of the Constitution as composed in 1787, considered this balance fundamental to the perpetuation of our new republic.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote often in The Federalist of the sacred sovereignty of the states. In Federalist No. 39, he wrote, "Each state, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act."
You decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)