Apr 2, 2010 | Healthcare
by Michael Boldin
Now that Heath Care legislation has passed, the obvious question for opponents is this: Now What? My answer is best summed up with just one word:
Marijuana.
No, I don’t mean that you should go out and smoke away your anger and frustration. Instead, you should feel empowered. The best way to explain this is by telling the story of a disabled mother from Northern California.
ANGEL’S STORY
Angel Raich has been permanently disabled since 1995. She has an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder and other serious medical conditions. In 1997, her doctor felt that marijuana would be an effective medication.
Angel used homegrown marijuana, and she and her physician claim that it’s helped significantly. You may not agree with Angel’s choice, but it’s one made in accordance with California state law, which allows for such use. The federal government, however, has not shown much respect for state laws in recent decades, and chose to take action. After DEA agents seized and destroyed all six of her marijuana plants, she sued to stop them from doing so again.
The suit went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in Gonzales v Raich, Angel lost. The 2005 ruling made clear that the federal government did not recognize state laws authorizing the use of marijuana – in any situation.
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
The court ruled that control over a plant grown and consumed on one’s own property was authorized under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “regulate…commerce among the several states.” It has never been amended.
Like any legal document, if the words of the Constitution mean today what they meant at the moment it was signed, we must understand just what those words meant at the time of its ratification.
There’s been a lot of scholarly research on this clause, especially the word “commerce” itself. Without getting into the long details of it all, it means this: Congress is authorized to make uniform national rules on the trade and exchange of goods (and related activities like their transportation) that cross state borders. On top of it, the word “regulate” meant to “make regular” – that is, to specify how these transactions may be conducted. Regulate did not mean ban, prohibit, or mandate. These words have different meanings.
With this in mind, the Supreme Court, which is not a set of nine infallible gods, ruled incorrectly. But rule, they did. Thus, all three federal branches agreed that State-level laws allowing marijuana were a no-go. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas gave a stark warning:
“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption…then Congress’ Article I powers…have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”
RESIST DC
Even though she lost the case, Angel indicated she’d continue to use marijuana. At the time of the ruling, there were 10 states that had such laws. Not one of them has been repealed. Since then, another 4 states have passed similar laws, and many others are considering them, including South Dakota, Kansas, and New Hampshire.
Today, over half a million people are registered users of medical marijuana, and estimates say that millions more use the plant without registration. What’s been the result? The federal government will occasionally arrest some high-profile users, but taken in the perspective of the multitudes consuming the plant, the threat is quite low.
And, in mid-2009, recognizing a need for “efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources,” the Justice Department announced that it would back off the prosecution of medical marijuana patients even further.
HUH?
You might be asking, “How does this apply to healthcare mandates?” Well, the answer is pretty simple. When enough states pass laws defying federal laws, and enough people actively defy them too, D.C. simply doesn’t have the manpower to arrest and prosecute all of us.
This kind of activism – while it clearly carries personal risk – should be a real blueprint for people that have been consistently unable to find constitutional relief in Congress, the Executive, or the Courts.
Marijuana users: Love ‘em or hate ‘em, but show some respect for them, as many have suffered greatly for doing what they believe is right. People who believe strongly about other issues, like health care mandates, would do well to learn from them.
What should be done about federal control over health care? The same thing that should be done for every unconstitutional federal law, regulation, or mandate – Nullify Now!
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Apr 2, 2010 | Healthcare
by Derek Sheriff
Last December, when Tennessee Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mount Juliet, said she would introduce legislation which would declare null and void any federal law the state deems unconstitutional, some people were horrified. Rep. Lynn was specifically targeting the health-care reform legislation that was pending at that time. But the reaction that many people had to her language was not an expression of their support for Obamacare.
Too many Americans hear the terms “states’ rights” or the word “nullification” and immediately think of racial prejudice, Jim Crow laws and school segregation. Honestly, if all I had to rely on was what I remember being taught in public school, I would probably tell you the history of it all went like this:
The theory of nullification was first invented in the 1800s’ by advocates of slavery. They used nullification of tarrifs as a test run in the 1820s. Of course, what they really had in mind was maintaining the institution of slavery against any possible attempt by the federal government to abolish it. Then America fought the Civil War in order to end slavery, but the ideas of states’ rights and nullification were later revived in the 1950s’ by belligerent white southerners in an attempt to block the racial integration of schools. The Civil Rights Movement started and the feds had to step in and force the southern states to treat everyone equally. THE END.
That’s a rough, abbreviated version of the narrative that was handed to me, but it gives you an idea of what many Americans think they know about states’ rights and nullification. Fortunately, thanks to people like Tom Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, and many others, I know today that this was a gross misrepresentation of the classical liberal states’ rights tradition. Then again, (and it’s not my intention to be prideful here), I’m not like most Americans. And If you’re reading this, you probably aren’t either.
Civic Illiteracy
In 1798, Jefferson and Madison articulated the concepts of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which were passed in response to to the hated Alienand Sedition Acts. But the ideas which support nullification and interposition were actually expressed earlier during the ratifying convention of Virginia by the Federalists themselves!
Given the fact, however, that most Americans cannot even correctly name all three branches of our federal government, it’s probably a safe bet that they have never heard of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions or the fact that nullification was used to assist runaway slaves.
So should it really come as any surprise that many people in Tennessee recoiled in horror at Rep. Susan Lynn’s comments about nullification? Rep. Mike Turner of Tennessee’s 51st District responded with a sarcastic and condescending comment that probably expressed the sentiment of many Tennessee’s left-liberal elites:
“Susan Lynn is yearning for times gone by,” Turner said. “Maybe we could put the poor people back to sharecropping and slavery and let the people up at the big house have all the nice things. We’ve already had that fight about states’ rights.”
Lynn responded to Turner’s comment by saying:
“I can’t even imagine that’s a serious comment.”
Rep. Turner’s comments resemble some of the incredibly ignorant and / or vicious comments directed against today’s advocates of nullification that frequently appear in the bologoshpere. One particular blogpost I stumbled upon really embodies the either extremely ignorant or wholly deceptive attempt to associate today’s proponents of states’ rights and nullification with segregationists, white supremacists and domestic terrorists:
“Why is it that the extremist teabaggers are not called traitors even though they are basically calling for an overthrow of the democratically elected U.S. government? There latest stunt should seal it. They are calling for a long rejected theory called Nullification, and at least one treasonous..blogger and teabagger is pushing it.”
The Compromise of 1850 and How Abolitionists Used Nullification
In 1850, Congress compromised in order to hold the Union together against the divisive issue of slavery. Since the preservation of the Union (Northern control of the South’s economy), rather than the abolition of slavery was foremost in the minds of influential Republican bankers, manufacturers and heads of corporations, this compromise made perfect sense.
Part of this compromise was the passage of more stringent fugitive slave legislation that compelled citizens of all states to assist federal marshals and their deputies with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves and brought all trials involving alleged fugitive slaves under federal jurisdiction. It included large fines for anyone who aided a slave in their escape, even by simply giving them food or shelter. The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for suspected slaves, and made their testimony non-admissible in court. The written testimony of the alleged slave’s master, on the other hand, which could be presented to the court by slave hunters, was given preferential treatment.
As would be expected, this new legislation outraged abolitionists, but also angered many citizens who were previously more apathetic. In 1851, 26 people in Syracuse, New York were arrested, charged and tried for freeing a runaway slave named William Henry (aka Jerry) who had been arrested under the Fugitive Slave Act. Among the 26 people tried was a U.S. Senator and the former Governor of New York! In an act of jury nullification, the trial resulted in only one conviction. “Jerry” was hidden in Syracuse for several days until he could safely escape into Canada.
The government of Wisconsin went even further and in 1854 officially declared the Fugitive Slave Act to be unconstitutional. The events that lead up to this monumental decision, which is a milestone in the history of the states’ rights tradition, is one of the best stories most Americans have never heard.
In 2006, H. Robert Baker, assistant professor of legal and constitutional history at Georgia State University wrote a book called, “The Rescue of Joshua Glover: A Fugitive Slave, the Constitution, and the Coming of the Civil War“. In its review of the book, The Journal of American History wrote:
“Terribly conflicted about race, Americans struggled mightily with a revolutionary heritage that sanctified liberty but also brooked compromise with slavery. Nevertheless, as The Rescue of Joshua Glover demonstrates, they maintained the principle that the people themselves were the last defenders of constitutional liberty…”
Joshua Glover was a slave in Missouri who managed to escape from his master. In 1854, with the help of the Underground Railroad, he made his way north, all the way to Wisconsin. There he found work at a mill in Racine, a community in which anti-slavery sentiment ran high. Unfortunately for Glover, his former master, B.S. Garland eventually managed to find out where Glover had taken up residence.
Accompanied by two US Marshals, the three of them took Glover by surprise. In spite of his resistance, Glover was subdued with a club and handcuffed. Thrown into a wagon, he was surreptitiously transported to Milwaukee, where he was thrown in jail. Glover’s abduction was discovered somehow or another, however, and in no time one hundred or so men landed by boat in Milwaukee.
The men marched towards the courthouse, which was adjacent to the jail, and crowds of people began to join their ranks or follow along as spectators. An abolitionist named Sherman Booth, who published a local daily newspaper there called the “Free Soil Democrat” rallied the supporters of the citizen army shouting:
“All freemen who are opposed to being made slaves or slave-catchers turn out to a meeting in the courthouse square at 2 o’clock!”
When the meeting at the courthouse adjourned, those who had assembled eventually resolved that Joshua Glover was entitled to at least two things: A writ of habeas corpus and a trial by jury. A local judge concurred and delivered the writ to the US Marshals at the jail. As might be expected, the federal officers rejected the writ as invalid. After all, federal law trumps state judicial authority, does it not?
The assembly of citizens from Racine and Milwaukee must have decided that such was not the case in this instance. In fearless defiance, they broke down the doors of the jail and freed Joshua Glover. In an act that probably would have filled Sheriff Mack with joy, had he been there, the Racine County Sheriff arrested Glover’s former slave master and the two US Marshals who had kidnapped him. They were charged with assault and put jail. In the meantime, the Underground Railroad assisted Joshua Glover as he crossed the border into Canada.
Although Glover escaped to freedom, it was not without a price. Glover’s former master, B.S. Garland was released on a writ of habeas corpus and in the long run would sue Sherman Booth, turning him financially upside down.
In the short run, Booth and two other men were arrested and indicted by a grand jury. While Booth maintained that he had never incited the crowd to liberate Glover or that had helped Glover escape in any way, he did not mince words either. Speaking in his own defense in front of the US Commissioner, he proclaimed:
“..I sympathize with the rescuers of Glover and rejoice at his escape. I rejoice that, in the first attempt of the slave-hunters to convert our jail into a slave-pen and our citizens into slave-catchers, they have signally failed, and that it has been decided by the spontaneous uprising and sovereign voice of the people, that no human being can be dragged into bondage from Milwaukee.”
According to his account of these events, Henry E. Legler wrote in 1898:
“Byron Paine made an argument in behalf of Booth that attracted attention all over the country. It was printed in pamphlet form and circulated on the streets of Boston by the thousands. Charles Sumner and Wendell Phillips wrote the author letters of hearty approval and commended his force of logic and able presentation of argument. This pamphlet is now excessively rare; but half a dozen copies are now known to exist.”
Judge Smith of the Wisconsin Supreme Court made the following declaration, that ought to inspire and motivate champions of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty today. Speaking not only for Wisconsin, but of all the states, he said that they would never accept the idea that:
“..an officer of the United States, armed with process to arrest a fugitive from service, is clothed with entire immunity from state authority; to commit whatever crime or outrage against the laws of the state; that their own high prerogative writ of habeas corpus shall be annulled, their authority defied, their officers resisted, the process of their own courts contemned, their territory invaded by federal force, the houses of their citizens searched, the sanctuary or their homes invaded, their streets and public places made the scenes of tumultuous and armed violence, and state sovereignty succumb–paralyzed and aghast–before the process of an officer unknown to the constitution and irresponsible to its sanctions. At least, such shall not become the degradation of Wisconsin, without meeting as stern remonstrance and resistance as I may be able to interpose, so long as her people impose upon me the duty of guarding their rights and liberties, and maintaining the dignity and sovereignty of their state.”
The United States Supreme court eventually reversed the action of the Wisconsin’s courts. Booth and one other man accused of helping to liberate Joshua Glover were found guilty. Both spent months in jail in addition to having to pay stiff fines. This was the price that was paid for Joshua Glover’s freedom.
Rather than being deterred, however, Wisconsin, along with several other states, such as Connecticut (1854), Rhode Island (1854), Massachusetts (1855), Michigan (1855), Maine (1855 and 1857), and Kansas (1858) all went on to pass even more personal liberty legislation designed to neutralize federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
It was no coincidence that the 1859 statement of the Wisconsin Supreme Court borrowed words directly from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
“Resolved, That the government formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
Resolved, that the principle and construction contended for by the party which now rules in the councils of the nation, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infractions; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”
The End, or Just the Beginning?
Few Americans have ever heard the heroic story of how the people of Wisconson and several other states stood up to the federal government’s tyrannical, unconstitutional slave laws with the help of their elected state officials.
Today state sovereignty and the Principles of 1798 are being invoked again, for a variety of reasons, just as they were invoked for a variety of reasons all throughout American history, in spite of what you may have been taught or are being told today.
States legislatures all over the Union today are standing up and re-asserting their sovereignty, which is guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. They are proposing and passing legislation which would nullify a whole host of unconstitutional federal laws including: The federally mandated national “REAL ID” card, restrictions on the use of Medical Marijuana, unconstitutional deployments of State National Guard units, federally mandated health insurance, unconstitutional regulations of state manufactured firearms and much more…
It is tragic that left-liberals have seemingly abandoned the classical liberal states’ rights tradition in favor of nationalism and the centralization of power. It is also shameful that they have made a concerted effort to associate nullification with slavery in the minds of average Americans. As Josh Eboch, State Chapter Coordinator for the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center observes:
“Of course, even though activists on the left supported nullification for Real ID and also for medical marijuana, those calling for state sovereignty with regard to health care will have to deal with the standard cries of racism and references to the Jim Crow…But just because nullification was used [unsuccessfully] in the past to deny rights to certain groups doesn’t mean it can’t be used to regain our rights today. In the end, ‘for desperate people whose freedoms are being systematically usurped by all three federal branches and both political parties, nullification may be the key to restoring our republic’.”
Derek Sheriff [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given
Mar 30, 2010 | Healthcare
By Dr. Harold Pease
Near midnight March 21, now known as “Red Sunday” the House of Representatives voted to pass the Senate version of a national health care bill following many late night, behind closed-door deals made to buy or threaten holdouts and organizations amidst uncommon legislative trickery. Shame had no limits.
I join the millions across the country disappointed—even angered—with our Imperial Congress, which has voted to clear the way for the end of freedom as we know it in healthcare—government takeover of 1/6 of the economy. They have done so with full knowledge that this intrusion is not supported by the people and is not constitutional.
Following a year filled with tea parties and town hall meetings where Americans voiced their anger and distrust of this bill, Congress has continued to be flooded with emails, phone calls, letters, and faxes, as never before. Millions of formerly silent and trusting Americans from both parties became vigilant activists as they saw liberty threatened and their voices simply ignored. Yet members of both houses marched forward, hell-bent to give us what recent surveys say a vast majority of Americans did not want.
The demand of the people was as clear as it possibly could be: We do not want socialism, more debt unfairly passed to our posterity, or laws that only lawyers can read and that are hundreds, sometimes thousands of pages in length! (Sunday morning the Bill was approximately 2400 pages in length but by evening it was near 2700 pages.) There has not been such disregard for the people since the American Revolution when Parliament did similarly. If an Imperial Congress can do it on one measure opposed by the people, they can do it on any measure. At least half of Congress no longer represents the people or defends the Constitution they vowed to honor. Everyone in the House or Senate voting to take away our health care liberty should be removed from office at the earliest possible moment regardless of party. Those running for Congress in 2010 should not be supported unless they pledge to repeal this legislation at the earliest possible moment.
The California State legislature immediately must join the 14 sister states bringing suit to the Federal Government for abuse of power on the basis of this most serious violation of the 10th Amendment. Health care is not one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 and thus is an individual or state prerogative at best, as noted in the much-ignored 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Nor can it be justified as an extension of the commerce clause as some ignorantly suppose. We must take back our health care from the government that cannot even run the post office. If we do not persist in this fight, then our government will continue to hijack our economy and run it into the ground just like they have done with everything else they have power over.
Mar 17, 2010 | Healthcare
By Dr. Harold Pease
We have a problem, California. Our house is on fire, and it is burning to the ground. Some refuse to acknowledge that this fire is dangerous. Some have chosen to bury their heads in the sand and pretend there is no fire. Some look directly at it, and while watching it destroy our livelihood say, “Don’t worry. That house is too big to burn down.” Others know the damage the fire will do, and condescendingly suggest we “grab a mop” to put it out.
Many have come to the rescue to put out the fire. A doctor or lawyer or some other respected professional may know how to put out a fire in theory; but I would prefer the firefighter who has been professionally trained, with his fire truck that is fully equipped with everything he or she needs to save my home from eminent destruction.
In the fight to save California’s house from burning to the ground, I consider myself to be the firefighter we need. The 25 years I have spent articulating freedom and adherence to the US Constitution in this community qualifies me to make such a statement. I come fully equipped with an arsenal of knowledge and the ability to articulate how the Constitution can save California. Many are asking me why I dropped out of the race for State Assembly, as I was the only candidate who came with a fire truck and water hose. Every audience I was privileged to address knew this, as did any and all who have known me and heard me speak over the years. But a funny and unfortunate thing about politics is that you cannot win unless that support turns into dollar signs, although we made a large dent in this race with our numerous volunteers and limited funds.
But the fight for liberty is not over for me. In fact, it is just beginning. The time for sitting idly by and watching as our liberty is confiscated from us one stifling law at a time is over. It is time to move beyond the four walls of my classroom, and beyond the party politics of any election. Real change will not come about in this country from the politicians; it will come from the people who demand it. But first we must arm ourselves with knowledge of our founding, and of the Constitution and how the principles therein can save our country and our freedom.
As a culture we have forgotten who we are, where we came from, and why those things matter. Through my website, LibertyUnderFire.org, I plan to share the wealth of information I have collected over the years with any and all who care about freedom.
If we do not act now, we will follow those in history who have given their freedom away to a government who promises the world in return. We must take back California and America now before the house burns to the ground and all that is left is the ash-dusted remnants of the freedom we can barely remember.
Jun 28, 2009 | Healthcare
As we watch so many young Iranians being beaten in the streets and teenager Neda gunned down by a government sniper, asking for freedom as we have it, we are forced to say, “Mr. President your actions in favor of these people is not enough.” The scenes are so reminiscent of Tiananmen Square in China 20 years ago when George Bush withheld his hand and the future leaders of a free China were similarly beaten and killed. Both countries have been defined as enemies in their time and each could now be free with non-military encouragement.
In the specific case of Iran the people have clearly “re-voted” in the streets when their ballot vote was denied, and their having protest signs in English is an obvious attempt to appeal to the West for support. Moreover, they are using facebook and twitter to send video clips in English so current information can be available to us. Can you not see that you can accomplish what your predecessor George W. Bush could not, by his secretive and unconstitutional regime change ploys, without firing a shot and have the goodwill of the next generation of Iranians also? Iran will become a nuclear power. Would it not be better to have such power in friendly hands?
The religious clerics who now rule Iran hate Israel and America. You are naive Mr. President in believing that any smooth talk will change this regardless of your fine oratory. You can/ should play your hand in strong verbal support of those wanting freedom. Everyone except the clerics know that the election was fraudulent. Why not verbally denounce it? Why not in the strongest terms and to the court of world opinion also denounce the killing of Neda, the young woman who only wants what you have? You will have lost nothing in this course of action but you will obtain instead the respect of a new generation of Iranians—regime change without American bullets. Win! Win
We live in the day when technology can reveal the secrets and abuses of tyrannical governments and resulting world opinion can pressure government to reform and extend to all peoples freedom as we have it. A strong verbal stand with the Iranians can also send a message that others living under tyranny in other countries can take the same course of action and freedom can consume the earth. This is the right time and the internet can be the best friend liberty ever had. As leader of the free world you must play this hand. It is what we are all about.
Oh, one other thing, both houses of Congress and both parties have voted overwhelming to support the Iranian people. Is your wisdom to do so only mildly superior to their collective wisdom to do so much more strongly? See supporting video clips to this article at LibertyUnderFire.org.
(In fairness to President Obama, as this went to press, he is finally speaking out a little more boldly on the subject. Hopefully it is not too little too late.)
