Blog

The Tenth Amendment Center adds New Option to Battle NDAA

NDAA: Liberty Preservation Act

This legislative package is a state-level response to constitutional violations by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) – primarily provisions that authorize indefinite detention. Activists, we encourage you to send this to your state senators and representatives – and ask them to introduce this legislation in your state.

Depending on the strength of opposition in your area, we recommend either a 1, 2 or 3 step action plan vis a vis this legislation. The 3-step plan includes each of the 3 pieces of model legislation below, and each builds on each other. A 2 step plan would start with #2, then move to #3 in a future session. A 1 step plan would start with #3. Please work with whatever will have the most effect in your area over the long run…

Full story and legislation on Tenth Amendment Center main website

Jan 25, 2012 | Categories:City and County News, Constitution, Departmentof Justice, Foundational Principles, Freedom and Liberty, Laws and Ordinances, Nullification, States Authority | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

Repeal the Seventeenth for a Tenacious Tenth

In an article from my personal blog @TheEagleKeeper entitled “For Freedom and Liberty: A Call For Statesmen”  I  stated that the sovereign states had lost much of the teeth of their sovereign position in relation to the federal government, by ratifying the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution. This amendment changed the process by which a senator would  be selected to represent the state in Washington DC:

Senators used to be selected by their State’s Legislature before the 17th Amendment put them out on the auction block. The respective state’s legislative body would appoint their representatives to go to Washington D.C. and be its voice. After the 17th Amendment, they became another resource which could be supported and funded by the special interest groups and mega-corporations. Now corporate dollars can be funneled into the campaigns of those running for senator. They became the voice of the special interest agenda, not an advocate for the needs of the state or the people. These same politicians, once in the seat of power, lay out, propose, and vote for legislation which fits the agendas being paid for by their special interest financiers. The American people, who this so called “statesman” is supposed to represent, are ignored. Their cries falling on deaf ears, and their protests visually ignored as if the blind had looked upon them, even on the steps of the Capital in Washington DC.

There has been movement to restore this power back to the states in recent years, as reported below in the Baltimore Sun. In the report, Senator Zen Miller of Georgia gives basically the same argument when he sought to repeal the 17th Amendment in 2004. He saw senators as essentially a tool of special interests.

 In recent years, some conservatives have pushed for repeal of the amendment, saying it upset a careful balance of power between the federal government and the states. They point to Federalist No. 62, by James Madison, who wrote that the U.S. Senate should be “an agency” for the states within the new national government and create a “convenient link” between local and federal lawmakers.

Then-U.S. Sen. Zell Miller, a Georgia Democrat, took up the cause in 2004, saying the direct election of senators has “allowed Washington’s special interests to call the shots.” Miller said state governments “aided in their own collective suicide” by ratifying the amendment in 1913.

“Can you imagine those dreadful unfunded mandates being put on the states … if senators were still chosen by and responsible to the state legislatures?” Miller said on the Senate floor. “Make no mistake about it, it is the special-interest groups and their fundraising power that elect senators.”

With the current constitutional encroachments we are experiencing daily, perhaps it is time to revisit the issue of repealing the 17th Amendment.

For Freedom and Liberty

Jan 18, 2012 | Categories:Constitution, Freedom and Liberty, Georgia State Legislation, States Authority, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | Leave A Comment »

Georgia Democrats Want Healthcare Exchange

(January 13 2012) As Obamacare is Unconstitutional, the focus at the Georgia General Assembly should be on passing a bill to nullify it, instead of wasting time and resources figuring out how to enslave the Georgia Citizenry to the whims of Washington DC.

ATLANTA  —  Georgia’s Republican leadership says it will wait to create a federally-mandated healthcare exchange until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Pres. Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Democrats held a press conference at the State Capitol to say that’s a mistake. They will file a bill setting up the exchange if Republicans don’t. (Photo: Jeanne Bonner)

Georgia Democrats say they will propose a bill creating a healthcare exchange if Republican lawmakers don’t. They also say they’ve filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Pres. Obama’s healthcare reform law.

Democrats say Republicans need to stop delaying the creation of a healthcare exchange.

The federal Affordable Care Act mandates that each state have a marketplace where residents can buy insurance.

The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the law in March, and will likely decide if it’s constitutional by June.

Read more:  Georgia Democrats Want Healthcare Exchange

 

 

Jan 15, 2012 | Categories:Georgia State Legislation, Laws and Ordinances, Nullification, States Authority | Tags: , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

Georgia to consider creation of Constitutional Guardian Advisory Council

Thanks to Michael Maharrey of TAC for this post.

Michael Maharrey is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenther Gleanings.

The Georgia legislature will consider a bill creating a Constitutional Guardian Advisory Council during the upcoming session.

HB670 would establish a 12 member council to advise the Governor and the General Assembly on issues including the constitutionality of federal laws; the feasibility of challenging federal acts relating to water use, EPA regulations, land management regulations and federal intervention that would damage the state’s mining, timber and agricultural industries; and whether federal acts fall within the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

The council would serve an advisory role and would have no power to enforce its recommendations. The bill is a “light” version of the Tenth Amendment Center’s 10th Amendment Commission model legislation, which creates a similar panel, but goes a step further empowering the body to “issue edicts with the force of law, requiring that no state or local officials, employees, or contractors cooperate in the enforcement of such usurpation, and urging state citizens to also refuse to cooperate.”

Rep. Joseph Clark (R-Buford) sponsors the Georgia bill.

The act finds its roots in the the framers’ view that the state government should serve as a check on federal power. The bill spells out certain state responsibilities in relation to the federal government.

The General Assembly finds the following fundamental, constitutional duties of the states, as evidenced by the framers of the Constitution.

1. Be the ‘sure guardians of the people’s liberty (James Madison).
2. Prevent the federal government from overpassing their constitutional limits (Alexander Hamilton).
3. Erect barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either by themselves or by the General Government (Thomas Jefferson).
4. Jealously and closely watch the [federal] government, and be able to resist . . . every assumption of power, [better] than any other power on earth can do. (James Madison).

The General Assembly further finds that, in the words of framer John Dickinson, “it will be their own FAULTS, if the several states suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in the things of their respective jurisdictions.”

Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin says Georgia, along with every other state in the Union,  needs to take every step possible to rein in federal abuse of power.

“This bill is about the state of Georgia stepping up to try to get a little Constitutional enforcement. For decades, all three branches of the federal government have utterly failed in this role, so this comes none too soon.”

To see the TAC Tenth Amendment Commission model legislation, click HERE.

Visit the TACs legislative tracking page HERE

Jan 07, 2012 | Categories:City and County News, Constitution, Georgia State Legislation, States Authority | Tags: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Georgia Secretary of State Pursues Five Obama Eligibility Complaints

Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp, has committed to pursue five separate complaints from Georgia residents concerning Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States.

In a story posted in the Atlanta -Constitution Journal,  it was reported that Kemp has assigned five separate judges to hear the five cases. These suits stand as challenges to Obama’s inclusion on the Georgia 2012 ballot. Liberty News Online, citing the Americans United for Freedom website, stated that “GEORGIA BECOMES THE FIRST STATE TO INVESTIGATE BARACK OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY FOR THE PRESIDENCY AS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN“.

Although a previous challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be President had failed in March 2009, these civil suits are direct from citizens question whether the President should even be considered as an option on next years election ballot in Georgia.

Dec 20, 2011 | Categories:Constitution, Freedom and Liberty | Tags: , , , | 2 Comments »

Who will stand for the American People?

A quick disclaimer here before I begin my rant…

I had exercised my prerogative as an American voter  to relay my thoughts concerning the abilities of  Ron Paul,  and express my support for him and his candidacy for POTUS. I would like to emphasis the fact that the opnions expressed in my reply to this individuals comment are my own, Lou Riccio’s, and do not infer support or endorsement for this, or any other candidate, by the Tenth Amendment Center. These views are Lou’s, exclusively…

The exchange below was a result of a comment which had been posted to an article at TheHill.com.  The title or subject of the article doesn’t matter at all.

I had been  perusing through the comments listed when my eyes spied an interesting “handle” for a commenter on this article:  “ConstitutionalPurist”. I thought to myself:

“Self, with a handle like this, we might actually get some good debate shakin’ on the board here.”

I was mistaken and disappointed. I had been let down and basically duped into thinking that if someone  had created a handle as inherently authoritative as “Constitutional Purist”, this person would actually throw some nutritional subsistence on the table to get the circling wolves and leopards engaged, thereby initiating a feeding frenzy which at least would allow the ravenous carnivores to make an attempt at devouring our  “Constitutional” friend.

As I have said, I was mistaken. But then, wait! Opportunity had seemed to shine its beckoning lantern my way as I began to read the poster’s short message:

The true outrage of the debates is the inclusion of Ron Paul on the stage with Republicans. Paul & his small fringe group of Internet trolls ARE NOT REPUBLICANS. They voted Obama in 08 & will do so again in 2012, unless their nearly 80 year old cult leader runs a third party canidacy, as he has said he will. Republicans owe nothing to this little fringe group, they deserve no respect from us as they have never supported the party no acted as a part of it.

BY ConstitutionalPurist on 11/13/2011 at 06:39

Was it possible I had not managed a good nights sleep last night? Or, maybe  it was that I had drank one too many pots of coffee this morning? The vehicle of enablement is inconsequential now. All I know is that I had this feeling that an intruder had broken perimeter and was  inside the wire:  my natural defensive and counter-attack mechanisms came upon me in a deluge and the hunted, became the hunter…

The resulting barrage of my opinions on the current state of the union, and the legitimacy of Ron Paul as a presidential candidate,  are below (please remember my disclaimer above…)

@ConstitutionalPurist >>>  Support The Party…??? Are You Kiddin’ Me?  PLEASE!!!!!

Who will stand for the American People?  Who will stand up and demand that Washington’s Country Club SUBMIT to the foundational principles that formed the government. The contractual covenant between the new government birthed and the People it was “TO SERVE…”?

This run-a-muck, out of control, no holds barred entity, exercising its total disregard for American Justice, Liberties, and Freedom. In this DC establishment’s arrogance, it even proposed legislation allowing the Department of Defense to determine the fate of an American citizen. Without a Jury, Without a Trial, Without a Charge!!!

Who will STAND for the People’s right to trial by a jury of peers and their right to confront their accusers?

As a “Constitutional Purist”, I would have assumed the potential atrocities of these treasonous proposals becoming law would be a grievous concern of yours as well, but no, I was mistaken.  I was quite floored to see you had expressed an opinion so “talking headish”, so parroted, containing nothing of value; unless of course you are one who believes Ron Paul to be an Elf and his followers, Trolls. But, I am sure you did tickle the fancy of some of them hard line “Conservative” Republican Party members expressing your deep, heart-felt devotion to the Republican cause and legacy. You seem to have that mantra down quite well and all figured out.

Me… ? I am a Republican, and to enlighten you, I did not, thankfully, vote for Obama…, but on the other hand, I didn’t vote for McCain either… I couldn’t stomach the thought of trading one, for the lesser of two evils. I, like many in this country, are sick and tired of the status quo in DC; sick of those who express a blatant disregard for the rights, opinions, and plight of the people. This fact is so graphically illustrated in the aggregation of constitutional violations occurring daily, and the degeneration of America’s trust in its government to ‘do the right thing”. Taking full and unrepentant advantage of each juicy crisis that comes along, it exploits each opportunity to further entrench its tentacles of tyranny into the lives, livelihood, and privacy of the American Taxpayer. Appointing a plethora of masters, multiple layers deep within federal bureaucracy, its agents lord over the people with constitutionally illegality to subdue or stifle any dissenting viewpoints, to detain, to breach, to come unannounced… to kill…    and to now, physically violate Americans’ bodies all in the cause of the nations’ best interest and its national security…

The fact that the body politic has become nauseated with the same “party lines” is so obvious, yet you, a ConstitutionalPurist, can only comment that Ron Paul is a cult leader, not “worthy to be called a Republican and that his army of trolls is the only reason he has the recognition that he has gotten.

I ‘ve got news for you CP, those trolls don’t need your support or that of the Republican Party. Ron Paul has already been successful in that he has brought to light his supporters love for freedom, liberty, justice and common sense. There is not one in the Republican Party who could stand toe to toe with the man in his commitment to sound economic policy or to the Constitution and the founding principles of this country. He is the only one with the GUTS to tell Washington, to its face, that it only exists to serve The People and that The People are not serfs who would willingly subject themselves to the oppressions of a power hungry statist government, just to gain the privilege of working the land long enough to buy a loaf of bread to feed his family. The simmering coals of hope for a better future for America and its people have been fanned to a fiery blaze of demand for accountability in the actions of its government officials. This conflagration ignited after realization by the American populace that no matter who you vote for; the Neo-Conical Statist or the Progressive Statist, you end up with the same outcome: Big Government, Corporate Collusion and Tyranny.

I hope this treatise helps to relieve you from a bit of the burden of having to wonder what everyone is bitchin’ about…

God Bless,

@TheEagleKeeper

Dec 01, 2011 | Categories:Constitution, Departmentof Justice, Foundational Principles, Freedom and Liberty, Laws and Ordinances, State Elections | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

The Uniform Enumerated Powers Act

Where do the three branches of our United States Government draw their lawmaking authority from; the authority to propose, to vote on, to pass, to veto or to deliver decisions upon? It is from the people’s document, The United States Constitution.

A more targeting question would be this:

“Where did the Senate draw its authority to pass the ‘No Child Left Behind’ act?” This is a specific law which affects all Americans. A law which burdens the individual States of the Union with unrealistic and unachievable mandates, goals and quotas for the education of our children.

This power was never granted to the Senate, nor to any branch of the US Government for that matter, in the document which enumerates each individual power granted to each of the three branches of government. The document written specifically to create the framework to build, and then set the boundaries to bind, a new federal government. An entity which given an opportunity, had the potential of becoming akin to the tyranny the young country had just thrown off in its war for independence. From where in this powerful document was this authority derived? Where is this authority enumerated in the Constitution, which had created a form of government for the people. They need to tell us by what authority they burden the American People with program after program, tax after tax, war after war…

MAKE THEM CITE WHERE THEY GET THE POWER FROM!!!

The Uniform Enumerated Powers Act is a piece of model legislation which can be downloaded from the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) and customized for your state. Working with fellow freedom and liberty minded organizations and individuals; those who understand how the Republic was created within the bounds of the US Constitution, campaigns can be initiated to spread understanding of how the Federal Government has progressively chipped away at our inalienable rights, our freedoms and our liberties, and those of the individual states. By proposing and passing unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law, they have incrementally burdened the American people with bigger government, higher taxes, failing fiat currency, and daily attacks laser targeting the rights granted to the people and the states by the first ten amendments to the Constitution, The Bill Of Rights.

More and more restrictions and regulations. More and more wasteful expenditure of American sweat.

"Law" photo courtesy of Jeroen van Oostrom

"Law" photo courtesy of Jeroen van Oostrom

The model legislation below seeks to require our elected officials to cite in all legislation, the article and section of the Constitution where they have derived the authority to legislate from:

A BILL

To require the federal government to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

SECTION 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS

The legislature of the State of [STATE] finds that,

1. The People of the Several States by virtue of their mutual compact created the federal government, as documented in the United States Constitution;

2. The People of the Several States set forth in the Constitution those powers which the several States delegated to the federal government;

3. The legislative powers which the the People of the Several States delegated to the federal government are set forth in the Constitution of the United States;

4. By virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution set forth in the Bill of Rights, the People of the Several States reserved to themselves, and to the People, all powers which were neither specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution nor expressly prohibited to the States therein;

5. Article V of the Constitution sets forth an express mechanism for proposing and approving amendments to the Constitution should powers not originally delegated by the People of the Several States to the federal government in the Constitution be deemed needful;

6. Under VI of the Constitution, the Constitution itself, and only those laws enacted by the federal government in pursuance of the Constitution under the powers actually delegated to it by the People of the Several States under the Constitution, are the supreme law of the land;

7. The federal government has assumed various powers not delegated to it by the People of the Several States according to the plain meaning of the language in the Constitution which delegates such powers;

8. The federal government, in reliance on the so-called commerce clause, general welfare clause and/or necessary and proper clause of the Constitution, exercises virtually unlimited power over all aspects of the lives of the People of the Several States, rendering meaningless the enumeration of limited powers which the People of the Several States delegated to the federal government;

9. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution expressly provides:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

SECTION 2. NEW LAW, SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Uniform Enumerated Powers Act’.

Sec. 102a. Constitutional authority clause

Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. If Congress shall fail or refuse to comply with this section, such Act, or any portion of such Act, shall be unauthoritative, void, and of no effect in the State of [STATE].

Sec. 102b. Concise and definite statement

The concise and definite statement of constitutional authority shall contain, at a minimum, the Article, Section and subsection or clause of the Constitution relied upon for the enactment of each portion of a federal Act.

When relying upon any interpretation of a delegated power that is not within the plain meaning and original intent of the words setting forth the delegated power, Congress shall provide a concise statement of the interpretation of such power from the minutes and records of the Constitutional Convention and/or the various ratifying conventions of the several states.

For purposes of this Act, any reliance upon the authority of the so-called “Commerce Clause”, “Necessary and Proper Clause” or “General Welfare Clause” shall be deemed not within the plain meaning of the words setting forth the delegated power.

SECTION 3.

This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

Oct 20, 2011 | Categories:Education, Foundational Principles, Freedom and Liberty, Nullification, States Authority | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

Georgia Seeks Alternative to No Child Left Behind

Georgia is one of the first states to seek an alternative to “No Child Left Behind”, according to this article from the Georgia Department of Education’s website. Remove the burden of the Federal Government’s inefficient, non-attainable goals outlined in NCLB, and the states can move to create a program that can improve the quality of education for all students:

“Through Georgia’s College and Career Ready Performance Index, we will be able to use multiple indicators to determine a school’s overall impact on our students”, said Superintendent Barge. “This approach will do more to ensure that the K-12 experience provides students with the academic preparation to compete globally, as well as the career development skills aligned with the evolving requirements of our workforce.”

Appendix B from the Request for Waiver to the USDOE Secretary Duncan, outlines the negative result if the current path is not altered, and highlights the equitable results of embarking on the new Georgia CCRPI plan:

Using current AYP indicators the number of schools in Needs Improvement status would
continue to escalate. Our proposed GaCCRPI provides an analysis that would detect variability
among the levels of need for schools within each NI consequence level and allow for differentiated support services.

For each category of Needs Improvement, an analysis will be done at the state level to identify
the specific areas of need. Based on those results, a second determination will guide the
interventions, which will result in strategic support services that are best suited to the needs of
specific students and schools.

A portion of the full press release is below:

Georgia Seeks Alternative to No Child Left Behind
MEDIA CONTACT: Matt Cardoza, GaDOE Communications Office, (404) 651-7358, mcardoza@gadoe.org

September 21, 2011 — U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and State School Superintendent Dr. John Barge yesterday personally delivered Georgia’s request for a waiver to certain provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and an alternative, to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Georgia is one of the first states seeking a waiver from some of the requirements within NCLB. The State requests permission to replace NCLB with Georgia’s College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) for each public school, school district, and the state for the 2011 – 2012 school year. This CCRPI determination will vary based upon grade levels. However, it will measure the extent to which a school, school district, and the state are successfully making progress on a number of accountability indicators such as content mastery, student attendance, and the next level of preparation.

Governor Nathan Deal said, “The College and Career Ready Performance Index developed by Dr. Barge and his team at the Georgia Department of Education moves us in the right direction for 21st century accountability. Rather than focusing on one test given on one school day, the CCRPI takes a comprehensive look at the things that go into making successful elementary, middle and high schools. I commend Dr. Barge and Sen. Isakson for personally delivering this important request, and I’m appreciative of Secretary Duncan’s willingness to entertain accountability waivers from states. I wholeheartedly support Georgia’s request.”

Sep 25, 2011 | Categories:Education, Georgia State Legislation, States Authority | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

Beer on Sunday? The Voting Rights Act of 1965? Really?

Why has the city of Lawrenceville Georgia, submitted a referendum to the United States Attorney General concerning a call for vote on whether or not the city should sell beer and wine on Sunday? Shouldn’t this only be of concern to the people of the City, Gwinnett County, or at most, the State of Georgia?

Posted in the Public Notices from the City of Lawrenceville, a call for a special election for citizens to consider the sale of wine and beer on Sundays

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED

Notice is hereby given to the public that the City of Lawrenceville, Georgia submitted an Ordinance, adopted by a majority of the governing authority of the City, amending the City’s Alcoholic Beverage Code and instructing the City’s Election Superintendent to call a Special Election for the purposes of the citizens of the City to consider the following question or special referendum topic: (1) “Shall the governing authority of the City of Lawrenceville, Georgia, be authorized to permit and regulate package sales by retailers of both malt beverages and wine on Sundays between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m.?”.  The submission was made on August 3, 2011 to the United States Attorney General for the purpose of preclearance pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. A complete duplicate copy of the submission to the United States Attorney General is available for public inspection at City Hall for the City of Lawrenceville, located at 70 South Clayton Street, Lawrenceville, Georgia  30046, during regular business hours.  All citizens desiring to comment on this submission may do so by submitting comments to:  Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, Room 7254-NWB, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC  20530.

If this referendum does not change any “voting qualification” or “prerequisite to voting”, why was it submitted to the United States Attorney General as per The Voting Rights Act of 1965 – Section 5 Pre-clearance? How does this section apply to a vote to allow beer to be sold on Sunday?  There are no changes to jurisdictions. No voting changes…  They are merely calling for a citizen vote on whether or not to sell beer on Sunday!

Am I missing something here?  The question is why…? How long will the city have to wait now for the DOJ to give “preclearence”? How many taxpayer dollars will be wasted on a non-applicable review by the Department of Justice to make sure civil rights of individuals are not violated?

An excerpt from the DOJ page concerning Section 5 of the Act:

Introduction to Section 5

Although the voting protections of the Fifteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are permanent,
Section 5 remains in effect through 2031.
Coverage Under the Special Provisions of the Voting Rights Act

Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained.

The requirement was enacted in 1965 as temporary legislation, to expire in five years, and applicable only to certain states. The specially covered jurisdictions were identified in Section 4 by a formula. The first element in the formula was that the state or political subdivision of the state maintained on November 1, 1964, a “test or device,” restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. Application of this formula resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, “covered jurisdictions”: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina were covered. It also provided a procedure to terminate this coverage.

Aug 26, 2011 | Categories:City and County News, Departmentof Justice, Laws and Ordinances, States Authority | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »

Antifederalist No. 17 Federalist Power Will Ultimately Subvert State Authority

In the last paragraph of Antifederalist paper  No.17, “Brutus” states the probability that the Federal Government would eventually look to usurp all the powers of the States. The writing of the paragraph seems almost to be a script from the teleprompters of the daily news. It is so obvious that what is taking place in Washington today is a direct result of the Statist’s progressive agendas, slowly but surely infringing  on the liberties of the people and the powers specifically given to the States.

(more…)

Aug 18, 2011 | Categories:Foundational Principles, Freedom and Liberty, States Authority | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave A Comment »