KrisAnne & JC put Principle over Party to create today's show to disprove the lies and arm you with the truth that will give you the power to take back the narrative. Larry King, John Paul Stevens, Aliens, Guns & Slavery, and so much more!
The post The Principled Purge appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.
The Second Amendment & Slavery by KrisAnne Hall, JD In an TMZ interview with Larry King recently it was said that the 2nd amendment was created by “Southern senators so they could ward off slaves uprising.” Yes there was slavery in the colonies and it was not confined to the South. Yes there were […]
The post The Second Amendment And Slavery appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.
TAC memberships help us produce more educational tools like this. Members can download this video and read the full transcript here.
Whatever Daniel Webster might have said about nullification later in his life, he was dead right in 1812.
FOLLOW TAC:
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest
Twitter: http://twitter.com/tenthamendment
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/
Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register
Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/
DES MOINES, Iowa (March 30, 2018) – On Wednesday, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law that will help facilitate healthcare freedom outside of government insurance regulatory schemes.
The House of Delegates Human Resources Committee introduced House Bill 2356 (HF2356) on Feb. 14. It replaced HF2275 sponsored by Rep. David Heaton (R-Mt. Pleasant). The new law specifies that direct primary care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors and patients from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code.
HF2356 also includes provisions defining direct primary care agreements and establishing modest requirements.
On March 21, the Senate passed HF2356 by a 47-2 vote. The House approved the measure 94-1 on Feb. 22. With Gov. Reynolds signature, the law will go into effect on July 1.
According to Michigan Capitol Confidential, by removing a third party payer from the equation, medical retainer agreements help both physicians and patients minimize costs. Jack Spencer writes:
“Under medical retainer agreements, patients make monthly payments to a physician who in return agrees to provide a menu of routine services at no extra charge. Because no insurance company stands between patient and doctor, the hassles and expense of bureaucratic red tape are eliminated, which have resulted in dramatic cost reductions. Routine primary care services (and the bureaucracy required to reimburse them) are estimated to consume 40 cents out of every dollar spent on insurance policies, so lower premiums for a given amount of coverage are another potential benefit.”
This represents the kind of cost control Obamacare promised but failed to deliver. In 2015, Tom Woods interviewed a Kansas doctor who utilizes the direct primary care model. Dr. Josh Umbehr’s practice demonstrates the cost savings possible when doctors are unfettered from the bureaucratic health insurance system.
Under Obamacare, regulations define such programs as a primary care service and not a health insurance plan, and current IRS policy treats these monthly fee arrangements just like another health plan.
A FIRST STEP
At this point, it doesn’t look like Republicans will repeal or even reform Obamacare, and the changes to the ACA proposed by the GOP would have arguably made things worse. Even with the penalty for not buying health insurance repealed by the Republican tax plan, all other Obamacare rules and regulations remain in place. Regardless, state actions can help completely bring down the Affordable Care Act, or any national healthcare plan the Congress comes up with in the future.
Oftentimes, supporters of Obamacare criticize opponents for not having any alternative. Direct primary care offers one.
These direct patient/doctor agreements allow a system uncontrolled by government regulations to develop. It makes doctors responsive to patients, not insurance company bureaucrats or government rule-makers. Allowing patients to contract directly with doctors via medical retainer agreements opens the market. Under such agreements, market forces will set price for services based on demand instead of relying on central planners with a political agenda. The end result will be better care delivered at a lower cost.
By incentivizing creative healthcare solutions, the market will naturally provide better options, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, This facility operates completely outside of the insurance system, providing a low-cost alternative for many surgical procedures.
A more open healthcare marketplace within a state will help spur de facto nullification the federal program by providing an affordable alternative. As patients flock to these arrangements and others spurred by ingenuity and market forces, the old system will begin to crumble. Creating a structure for Medicaid patients to access direct primary care would likely incentivize more doctors to adopt the direct primary care model, expanding the market further.
Passage of HF2356 takes the first step toward healthcare freedom in Iowa and creates a stepping stone to further action to nullify the onerous Affordable Care act. With this new law in place, the people of Iowa can take further steps to fully extricate themselves from Obamacare for good.
A $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill. More military spending than any time in history. How did things get to this point?
Even some of the most loyal supporters of Pres. Trump have expressed both frustration and dismay that he signed an omnibus spending bill larger than all but one signed by former Pres. Obama.
Angry opposition has come from the likes of Laura Ingraham, Amy Kremer and Ann Coulter. But not everyone is upset.
Matt House, communications director for Sen. Chuck Schumer, said on Twitter that he’s “tired of all the winning.” Schumer himself was excited about all that was included in the spending bill. He said, “It’s a funny thing. In a certain sense, we’re able to accomplish more in the minority than we were when we had the presidency or even were in the majority.” And Defense Secretary James Mattis said he was “humbled” by receiving the “largest military budget in history.”
Many people may have been stunned by the President signing such a bill, especially if they were only paying attention to the claims of mainstream politicians and pundits the last two years. On the left, the great fear was that Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress would slash and burn all kinds of federal programs. On the right, and in some libertarian circles, the great hope was pretty much the same.
But no one should be surprised at how things have turned out so far. For opponents of big government and massive military budgets, the president’s core beliefs are the greatest danger and strongest reason to expect more of the same in the future.
In a brief press conference last week explaining why he’d sign legislation so many of his voters obviously opposed, Pres. Trump made it quite clear. He said his “number one duty is to keep Americans safe.”
But this couldn’t be further from the truth.
The real “number one duty” of the President is to follow the Constitution.
This is laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution – the oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
In his press conference, the president appeared to sincerely lament some of the programs the omnibus will fund. But, because of his incorrect belief that his top job is to keep Americans safe, coupled with an errant view that more military spending will do the job, he was willing to set aside those issues to achieve his primary goal.
While some might be tempted to shrug off the president’s statement as one of convenience, an excuse to get away with signing the massive spending bill, the unfortunate truth is this is part and parcel of his core belief and one that he’s repeated numerous times.
Last May, he said, “my highest duty is to keep America safe.” He repeated this in a tweet last September, saying “Making America Safe is my number one priority.”
Think of it this way.
A president who believes his top duty is to “keep Americans educated,” and holds the view that more federal spending on education would accomplish that goal is far more likely to sign a spending bill that provides the biggest education budget in history, even if it also included funding for many other projects that president opposed.
The same could happen with any federal program that any president holds as their top priority.
As long as Pres. Trump continues to believe that more military spending will result in him doing the job he incorrectly believes to be his “highest duty,” no one should be surprised when the next omnibus expands military spending even further. It’s the sure-fire way to guarantee he’ll ignore everything else Congress is certain to put in the legislation, including more funding for federal programs the president or his supporters have repeatedly said they oppose.
The “Father of the Constitution, James Madison, issued a poignant warning:
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”
Pres. Trump will never be able to heed this warning unless he has a foundational shift in core beliefs and embraces his real “highest duty.”
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Who was the worst president? Tom Woods and Michael Malice were presented with this question in one of his recent podcast episodes. He and Malice spent a good deal of time debating if Woodrow Wilson or Franklin Roosevelt did more damage to America. Both were awful, and Malice makes a compelling case for Wilson, while Woods at throws a few stones at FDR. But this question is too simplistic and it leaves out a host of other bad guy presidents in American history.
One dreadful executive whose reputation scholars are attempting to rehabilitate is Lyndon Johnson, and a case could be made that he was ultimately worse than both Wilson and FDR for modern America.
Johnson’s policies of “guns and butter” have done more long-term damage to the American economy than either FDR or Wilson, and his escalation of American involvement in Vietnam expanded the Cold War and set the stage for the “Vietnam syndrome” in American foreign policy. Getting rid of the ghosts of Vietnam’s past was a driving force in the First Gulf War in 1991-2. We had to kick someone’s butt.
The Great Society has radically transformed the way Americans think of government spending and government programs. It hooked vast sections of the American economy on the morphine drip of federal cash and created perpetual government dependents while ruining traditional American values. The snowflake generation and their sense of entitlement are a result.
Nixon’s decision to remove the United States from any precious metal standard would not have been possible without Johnson’s foreign and domestic policies and the doubling of the “federal” budget during his administration.
We still live in Johnson’s Great Society while Wilson’s New Freedom and FDR’s New Deal are largely forgotten or have been eclipsed by Johnson’s more sweeping agenda.
I discuss Johnson and his Great Society in Episode 154 of The Brion McClanahan Show.
And don’t forget to pick up my 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America. Johnson, Wilson, and FDR get the “treatment” in that book.
MADISON, Wisc. (March 29, 2018) – Yesterday, the Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill into law that sets the foundation to nullify in practice some Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules that deny access to experimental treatments by terminally ill patients.
A large bipartisan coalition of senators and representatives introduced Senate Bill 84 (SB84) last year and it carried over to the 2018 session. The the new law gives terminally ill patients access to medicines not yet given final approval for use by the FDA.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits general access to experimental drugs. However, under the expanded access provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb, patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases may access experimental drugs after receiving express FDA approval.
SB84 creates a process to bypass the FDA expanded access program and allows patients to obtain experimental drugs from manufacturers without first obtaining FDA approval. This procedure directly conflicts with the federal expanded access program and sets the stage to nullify it in practice.
With Gov. Walker’s signature, the Right to Try Act goes into effect March 30.
The new law includes legal protections for physician prescribing experimental treatments under the law, shielding them from civil and criminal liability. The legislation provides similar protections for manufacturers of an experimental treatment.
Wisconsin joins 38 other states with Right to Try laws on the books. Although these laws only address one small aspect of FDA regulation, they provide a clear model that demonstrates how to nullify federal statutes that violate the Constitution. The strategy narrows the influence of nullification to limited aspects of the law itself, which has proven to be very effective.
“Americans shouldn’t have to ask the government for permission to try to save their own lives,” said Darcy Olsen, president of the Goldwater Institute. “They should be able to work with their doctors directly to decide what potentially life-saving treatments they are willing to try. This is exactly what Right To Try does.”
The results show that the impact of Right to Try isn’t merely theoretical.
Since the Texas Right to Try law went into effect in June 2015, at least 78 patients in the Lone Star State have received an experimental cancer treatment not allowed by the FDA. While the FDA would have allowed these patients to die, Houston-based oncologist Dr. Ebrahim Delpassand continued their treatment through the Texas law. (Watch a video about Dr. Delpassand here.)
The Right to Try Act is a no-brainer. When someone is on their deathbed, the fact that FDA regulations would let them die rather than try has got to be one of the most inhumane policies of the federal government. Every state should take action to nullify the FDA like this.
DENVER, Colo. (March 29, 2018) – Yesterday, the Colorado Senate unanimously passed a bill that would further mainstream the state’s industrial hemp industry. Final passage of this bill would likely pave the way for faster development of the state’s hemp market, and further nullify federal prohibition in practice and effect.
A bipartisan coalition of two senators and two representatives introduced Senate Bill 205 (SB205) on March 12. The legislation would include the unprocessed seeds of industrial hemp in the definition of “commodity” within the “Commodity Handler Act” and include industrial hemp itself in the definition of “farm products” within the “Farm Products Act.” In effect, this would subject any person acting as a commodity handler of hemp seed or a farm products dealer of hemp to the licensing requirements already in place for commodities and farm product dealers.
Currently, commodities include hard seeds or fruits such as wheat, corn, oats, barley, rye, sunflower seeds, soybeans, beans, grain sorghum and other seeds. Farm products include any “unprocessed product of the soil,” livestock, milk, honey, and hay. By adding hemp to these definitions, state law will treat industrial hemp more like other agricultural products, mainstreaming the industrial hemp industry. While it will mean more regulations for handlers, it will likely serve to instill confidence in the market and removes the impression that hemp is something “different.” In effect, the proposed law will move the state a step closer to “normalizing” hemp and to treating it the same as any other farm product.
The Senate passed SB205 by a 35-0 vote.
FEDERAL FARM BILL
In 2014, Congress cracked the door open for hemp in the U.S. with an amendment to the 2014 Farm Bill. The law allows hemp cultivation for research purposes, but prohibits “commercial” production.
The “hemp amendment” in the 2014 farm bill —
…allows State Agriculture Departments, colleges and universities to grow hemp, defined as the non-drug oil-seed and fiber varieties of Cannabis, for academic or agricultural research purposes, but it applies only to states where industrial hemp farming is already legal under state law.
In 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Drug Enforcement Agency released a “statement of principles” to guide interpretation of the hemp section in the Farm Bill. It states, “The growth and cultivation of industrial hemp may only take place in accordance with an agricultural pilot program to study the growth, cultivation, or marketing of industrial hemp established by a State department of agriculture or State agency responsible for agriculture in a State where the production of industrial hemp is otherwise legal under State law.”
In short, the current federal law authorizes farming of hemp – by research institutions, or within state pilot programs – for research only. Farming for commercial purposes by individuals and businesses remains prohibited.
The definition of “commercial” and the extent to which sales and marketing are allowed under the rubric of “research” remains murky. This has created significant confusion.
The statement of principles also asserted that industrial hemp programs are limited to fiber and seed. It didn’t mention the CBD oil or other edible hemp products.The DEA has apparently interpreted that to mean they remain illegal.
Under Colorado law, farmers can ignore federal prohibition and grow hemp commercially anyway. While prospective hemp growers still have to take federal law into consideration, by eliminating the state requirement for federal permission the law clears away a major obstacle to widespread commercial hemp farming within the state’s borders.
Several other states with federally-compliant hemp programs, such as Kentucky, North Dakota, Minnesota and New York, have grown significant acreage under federally-approved research programs. This takes the first step, but with federal shackles in place, these states are not legally allowed to develop any kind of commercial market. Ironically, many of these “federally compliant” programs are not actually federally compliant.
OTHER STATES
Other states, including Oregon, Maine and Vermont have simply ignored federal prohibition and legalized industrial hemp production within their state borders.
Colorado was the first state with widespread commercial hemp production. Farmers began growing hemp in southeast Colorado back in 2013 and the industry is beginning to mature. The amount of acreage used to grow industrial hemp in the state doubled in 2016 to nearly 5,000 acres, and nearly doubled again in 2017.
The Oregon legislature initially legalized industrial hemp production in 2009. While it was technically legal to grow hemp in the state, farmers didn’t take advantage of the opportunity for nearly five years. When the Oregon Department of Agriculture finally put a licensing and regulatory program in place early in 2014, farmers began growing hemp. The initial regulatory structure placed significant limits on hemp farming and effectively locked small growers out of the market. In 2016, Gov. Kate Brown signed House Bill 4060 into law. It relaxed state laws regulating hemp already on the books and made the crop more like other agricultural products. Within months, the Oregon Department of Agriculture had already promulgated new rules under the reformed law. According to Oregon’s Cannabis Connection, the rules set the stage to creates a “massive” medical hemp market. The state produced 3,469 acres of hemp in 2017.
Both Colorado and Oregon demonstrate how loosening rules at the state level encourage the market and allow hemp a legitimate commercial hemp industry to develop.
HUGE MARKET FOR HEMP
According to a 2005 Congressional Research Service report, the U.S. is the only developed nation that hasn’t developed an industrial hemp crop for economic purposes.
Experts suggest that the U.S. market for hemp is around $600 million per year. They count as many as 25,000 uses for industrial hemp, including food, cosmetics, plastics and bio-fuel. The U.S. is currently the world’s #1 importer of hemp fiber for various products, with China and Canada acting as the top two exporters in the world.
During World War II, the United States military relied heavily on hemp products, which resulted in the famous campaign and government-produced film, “Hemp for Victory!”
WHAT’S NEXT
SB205 now moves to the House for further consideration. At the time of this report, it had not recieved a House committee assignment. Once it does, it will have to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
Today in 1790, future president of the United States John Tyler was born.
Mockingly called “His Accidency” by his political rivals, Tyler’s strict devotion to the Constitution made him made enemies, including his own party. Former Mayor of New York Philip Hone wrote in 1842 that Tyler’s administration had consisted of “one year of the rule of imbecility, arrogance, and prejudice.”
Time and time again, Tyler obstructed Whig efforts to recharter a national bank, raise tariffs to radical heights, and implement various other unconstitutional measures. He made himself the primary foe of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, both of whom sought to undermine him at every possible opportunity. He nominated five different individuals to the Supreme Court, only one of which was confirmed.
Despite being kicked out of the Whig Party, he and his brilliant Secretary of Defense, Abel Upshur, laid the groundwork for Texas annexation through an arrangement with the Texas government. Though a freak canon disaster killed Upshur and narrowly missed Tyler, and Texas was actually brought into the union in the beginning days of the Polk administration, the eventual incorporation of Texas into the union served as one of his lasting accomplishments.
Tyler made political enemies for the right reasons. While a senator, he was also a sole member of that body to vote against Andrew Jackson’s Force Bill, which would have authorized Jackson to invade South Carolina to enforce the federal tariffs. As president, his rigid adherence to the Constitution, as ratified, has long gone ignored or unnoticed by most historians, many of whom have attempted to shove any memory of his presidency under a rug.
A Jeffersonian by nature, Tyler understood the Constitution was a compact among states, constituted for predefined purposes only, all others remaining with the states, as parties to that compact. Eminent historian Douglas Southall Freeman called Tyler “an ideal of political consistency in an era of change.” For these reasons, I consider him one of the best three presidents in United States history.
For more on Tyler and my esteem for him, please see this, an excerpt from my book, Compact of the Republic: The League of States and the Constitution.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (March 27, 2018) – Last Friday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill into law that will help facilitate healthcare freedom outside of government regulatory schemes.
Rep. Daniel Burgess (R-Zephyrhills) sponsored House Bill 37 (H37). The new law specifies that direct primary care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors and patients from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code. The bill also stipulates that a primary care provider or an agent of a primary care provider is not required to obtain a certificate of authority or license under the Florida Insurance Code to market, sell, or offer to sell a direct primary care agreement.
H37 also includes provisions defining direct primary care agreements and establishing modest requirements.
The Senate substituted H37 for the Senate version of the legislation sponsored by Sen. Tom Lee (R-Brandon) (S80) and unanimously passed the measure by a 38-0 vote. The House passed the bill 97-10 in January. With Gov. Scott’s signature, H37 will go into effect July 1, 2018.
According to Michigan Capitol Confidential, by removing a third party payer from the equation, medical retainer agreements help both physicians and patients minimize costs. Jack Spencer writes:
“Under medical retainer agreements, patients make monthly payments to a physician who in return agrees to provide a menu of routine services at no extra charge. Because no insurance company stands between patient and doctor, the hassles and expense of bureaucratic red tape are eliminated, which have resulted in dramatic cost reductions. Routine primary care services (and the bureaucracy required to reimburse them) are estimated to consume 40 cents out of every dollar spent on insurance policies, so lower premiums for a given amount of coverage are another potential benefit.”
This represents the kind of cost control Obamacare promised but failed to deliver. In 2015, Tom Woods interviewed a Kansas doctor who utilizes the direct primary care model. Dr. Josh Umbehr’s practice demonstrates the cost savings possible when doctors are unfettered from the bureaucratic health insurance system.
Under Obamacare, regulations define such programs as a primary care service and not a health insurance plan, and current IRS policy treats these monthly fee arrangements just like another health plan.
A FIRST STEP
At this point, it doesn’t look like Republicans will repeal or even reform Obamacare, and the changes to the ACA proposed by the GOP would have arguably made things worse. Even with the penalty for not buying health insurance repealed by the Republican tax plan, all other Obamacare rules and regulations remain in place. Regardless, state actions can help completely bring down the Affordable Care Act, or any national healthcare plan the Congress comes up with in the future.
Oftentimes, supporters of Obamacare criticize opponents for not having any alternative. Direct primary care offers one.
These direct patient/doctor agreements allow a system uncontrolled by government regulations to develop. It makes doctors responsive to patients, not insurance company bureaucrats or government rule-makers. Allowing patients to contract directly with doctors via medical retainer agreements opens the market. Under such agreements, market forces will set price for services based on demand instead of relying on central planners with a political agenda. The end result will be better care delivered at a lower cost.
By incentivizing creative healthcare solutions, the market will naturally provide better options, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, This facility operates completely outside of the insurance system, providing a low-cost alternative for many surgical procedures.
A more open healthcare marketplace within a state will help spur de facto nullification the federal program by providing an affordable alternative. As patients flock to these arrangements and others spurred by ingenuity and market forces, the old system will begin to crumble.
Passage of H37 takes the first step toward healthcare freedom in Florida and creates a stepping stone to further action to nullify the onerous Affordable Care act. With this in place, Floridians could take further steps to fully extricate themselves from Obamacare for good.
For more information on a plan to nullify the PPACA, click HERE.
Dear Mr. Bolton,
When I was young, I assumed people who went to prestigious law schools learned a great deal about the Constitution and U.S. history. As I’ve grown older, I’ve come to understand this isn’t generally the case. In fact, lawyers trained at America’s elite universities tend to be some of the most constitutionally and historically ignorant people I run across.
You reinforced this truth with recent comments about nullification you made during your interview with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Breitbart News Daily.
I understand that as a Republican, you have to oppose “sanctuary cities.” But I don’t really understand why you, among several other prominent Republicans including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Rep. Tom McClintock, have to sound like Rachel Maddow in the process. All four of you dredged up the same spurious talking points on nullification. Slavery. John C. Calhoun. Confederate. blah, blah, blah.
Believe me, these assertions sound just as dumb as Republican talking points as they do as Democrat talking points.
I’m guessing you don’t really want to run around sounding like an ignoramus, so I thought I would take the opportunity to correct some of your factually dubious assertions regarding nullification.
You said that “what California is proposing, essentially, is what’s called nullification.”
Well, that’s the one thing you got right – at least in the broad sense of the word nullification. In fact, a big part of what California is doing is exactly what James Madison said states should do when the federal government commits an unwarrantable act, or even “a warrantable measure” that happens to be unpopular. The “Father of the Constitution” said “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union,” would create impediments to federal action, “and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
Madison understood the federal government would need state and local cooperation in order to effectively act, and he provided a blueprint for states follow in order to check federal actions.
We’ll get back to this particular nullification strategy in a moment, but first I want to address your historical understanding of nullification.
“That [nullification] was also proposed by South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun before the Civil War, to say that South Carolina and other slave states would not enforce federal law regarding slavery.”
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
I don’t just mean you’re maybe misinterpreting things a little bit, or that I have a slightly different take on what happened. I mean you’re 100 percent factually wrong.
Now, it is true that John C. Calhoun proposed nullification. In fact, South Carolina followed his proposal. But it had nothing to do with slavery.
Zero. Zlich. Nadda.
The “nullification crisis” was all about tariffs.
In 1828, Congress passed a tariff designed to protect the northern industrial economy, struggling to compete against low-cost imported goods. Southerners generally opposed the tariff because it raised the price of goods imported into southern states, things they could not manufacture themselves. It also indirectly hurt the southern agrarian economy by reducing cash available for the English to purchase southern cotton. Opposition proved particularly fierce in South Carolina. Many southerners dubbed it the “Tariff of Abominations.”
John C. Calhoun proposed nullifying these tariffs. It had nothing to do with enforcing federal law against slavery. This proposition doesn’t even make any sense. Slavery was the law of the land in the United States. What exactly was the South going to nullify?
Here’s the delicious irony in all of this. There were people proposing nullification to stop the enforcement of federal slave laws.
Northerners.
Yes. Abolitionists used a nullification strategy (successfully, I might add) to stop enforcement of the draconian Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Northern states passed laws refusing to cooperate with enforcement of this act. In other words, these states refused to help federal marshals and Southern slave catchers round up runaway slaves and send them back South into bondage.
I know this story makes it a little hard for you anti-nullifiers to claim the moral high ground. Facts can be inconvenient. But yes. Harriet Tubman and William Lloyd Garrison were nullifiers.
No wonder y’all make up your own facts.
On a side-note, I noticed that you and Rachel Maddow both neglected to mention that the person who first formally articulated the principles of nullification was Thomas Jefferson. And of course, it had nothing to do with slavery. You see, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, and President John Adams signed them into law. The federal government was arresting people for criticizing the federal government, and asserted authority to deport “aliens” (i.e.immigrants) that James Madison said, “exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government.” Jefferson wrote that “where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
Again, I understand that citing wild-haired John C. Calhoun as the architect of nullification works better for your political narrative. But if you’re going to invoke history to make your point, you should probably include, you know, the history.
Now, before I close, I want to circle back to Madison’s blueprint.
You said, “The idea that law enforcement at lower levels shouldn’t be required to cooperate with the feds is just unthinkable.”
But, it really isn’t unthinkable, now is it? After all, Madison thought of it in 1788. And he recommended it as a strategy to limit federal power.
And you know where else this idea of noncooperation with the federal government is completely thinkable? The Supreme Court.
In 1842, the Supreme Court codified Madison’s blueprint into federal law. In his opinion in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, Justice Joseph Story held that the federal government could not force states to implement or carry out the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. He said that it was a federal law, and the federal government ultimately had to enforce it.
The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted. The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or instrusted to them by the Constitution.
It was on this basis that northern states later nullified the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 primarily by simply refusing to cooperate with enforcement of the law.
Since that time, the Court has consistently reaffirmed this legal principle, commonly known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. In simplest terms, the Court has held that the federal government cannot force states to use their personnel or resources to enforce federal law or to implement federal programs. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone of this legal principle.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
So, not only is noncooperation with the feds thinkable, it’s been the law of the land for at least 176 years. You would think a lawyer would know this. But maybe they skipped this at Yale.
Now, I know you included a hyperbolic example of helping the FBI investigate bank robberies to drive your point home. That’s a pretty good rhetorical tactic. But really, is any state going to stop enforcing laws against robbing banks? I doubt it. Because, you know, there are also state laws against robbing banks. But here’s the thing – if they really wanted to, they could stop helping the FBI enforce those federal laws. They could just let the FBI do it themselves.
Most of California’s “sanctuary” policies follow Madison’s Federalist #46 blueprint. Now, I will grant you this: there are some questions worthy of discussion. Does the state’s attempt to withdraw resources from the enforcement of federal immigration law, a policy backed by 175 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence under the anti-commandeering doctrine, cross the line into active interference with federal agents in some cases? Maybe. But if we’re going to have a rational discussion about these policies, we are going to have to get passed interjecting misleading and disingenuous history into the conversation.
Economist Murray Rothbard once said, “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
You can make the same case for history. I can understand your opposition to sanctuary cities, but your vociferous, yet totally ignorant opinion on nullification doesn’t really help you make your case. It just makes you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about. Because you don’t.
Sincerely,
Michael Maharrey
Today is the 432nd day that the GOP has failed to repeal Obamacare. Last week, Pres. Donald Trump signed a $1.3 trillion spending bill. In light of this GOP spending insanity, we can’t help point out that it doesn’t matter if Democrats or Republicans control Washington D.C. No matter what, we’re going to see trillions of dollars in spending, funding of endless unconstitutional programs and a growing federal debt – now eclipsing $21 trillion. That’s why our message has stayed the same no matter who’s in charge – nullify all their unconstitutional acts. In this episode of Tenther Tuesday, Michael Boldin and Michael Maharrey talk about a number state efforts moving in this direction.
WATCH
SHOW LINKS
JOIN TAC, Support the Constitution and liberty: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members
Utah Right to Try Expansion for Medical Marijuana
Colorado High Capacity Magazine Repeal
FRANKFORT, Ky. (March 27, 2018) – Last week, a bill requiring police to get a warrant before engaging in drone surveillance in most situations became law without the governor’s signature. The new law not only establishes important privacy protections at the state level, it will also help thwart the federal surveillance state.
Rep. Diane St. Onge (R-Lakeside Park) and Rep. Reginald Meeks (D-Louisville) introduced House Bill 22 (HB22) on Jan. 2. The new law prohibits the use of a drone for a “search” unless authorized under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution. In effect, the officers will now have to get a warrant based on probable cause before gathering information with a drone in any situation that would require officers on the ground to have a warrant. In order for the search to be valid, the warrant must specifically authorize the use of an unmanned aircraft system.
The new law requires police to minimize data collection on non-suspects and prohibits the disclosure of any such data without a court order.
Any information collected in violation of the law is inadmissible as evidence in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding in the state.
HB22 also prohibits the operation of any drone equipped with a lethal payload.
On March 6, the Senate passed HB22 by a 38-0 vote.The House previously approved the measure by a 94-0 vote. Gov. Matt Bevin did not sign the bill, but it became law without his signature on March 24.
Impact on the Federal Surveillance State
Although the proposed law would only apply to state and local drone use, it throws a high hurdle in front of some federal programs.
According to a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, drones can be equipped with various types of surveillance equipment that can collect high definition video and still images day and night. Drones can be equipped with technology allowing them to intercept cell phone calls, determine GPS locations, and gather license plate information. Drones can be used to determine whether individuals are carrying guns. Synthetic-aperture radar can identify changes in the landscape, such as footprints and tire tracks. Some drones are even equipped with facial recognition.According to research from the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, 347 U.S. police, sheriff, fire, and emergency response units acquired drones between 2009 and early 2017—primarily sheriff’s offices and local police departments.
Much of the funding for drones at the state and local level comes from the federal government, in and of itself a constitutional violation. In return, federal agencies tap into the information gathered by state and local law enforcement through fusion centers and a federal program known as the information sharing environment.
According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators… have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.
The federal government encourages and funds a network of drones at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on drone use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.
Currently, 18 states—Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin—require law enforcement agencies in certain circumstances to obtain a search warrant to use drones for surveillance or to conduct a search.
In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.
WHAT’S NEXT
HB22 will go into effect 90 days after the end of the 2018 legislative session.
by Ron Paul
On Friday, President Trump signed the omnibus spending bill for 2018. The $1.3 trillion bill was so monstrous that it would have made the biggest spender in the Obama Administration blush. The image of leading Congressional Democrats Pelosi and Schumer grinning and gloating over getting everything they wanted — and then some — will likely come back to haunt Republicans at the midterm elections. If so, they will deserve it.
Even President Trump admitted the bill was horrible. As he said in the signing ceremony, “there are a lot of things that we shouldn’t have had in this bill, but we were, in a sense, forced — if we want to build our military…”
This is why I often say: forget about needing a third political party – we need a second political party! Trump is admitting that to fuel the warfare state and enrich the military-industrial complex, it was necessary to dump endless tax dollars into the welfare state.
But no one “forced” President Trump to sign the bill. His party controls both houses of Congress. He knows that no one in Washington cares about deficits so he was more than willing to spread some Fed-created money at home to get his massive war spending boost.
And about the militarism funded by the bill? Defense Secretary James Mattis said at the same press conference that, “As the President noted, today we received the largest military budget in history, reversing many years of decline and unpredictable funding.”He’s right and wrong at the same time. Yes it is another big increase in military spending. In fact the US continues to spend more than at least the next seven or so largest countries combined. But his statement is misleading. Where are these several years of decline? Did we somehow miss a massive reduction in military spending under President Obama? Did the last Administration close the thousands of military bases in more than 150 countries while we weren’t looking?
Of course not.
On militarism, the Obama Administration was just an extension of the Bush Administration, which was an extension of the militarism of the Clinton Administration. And so on. The military-industrial complex continues to generate record profits from fictitious enemies. The mainstream media continues to play the game, amplifying the war propaganda produced by the think tanks, which are funded by the big defense contractors.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. This is conspiracy fact. Enemies must be created to keep Washington rich, even as the rest of the country suffers from the destruction of the dollar. That is why the neocons continue to do very well in this Administration.
While Trump and Mattis were celebrating big military spending increases, the president announced that John Bolton, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war debacle, would become his national security advisor. As former CIA analyst Paul Pillar has written, this is a man who, while at the State Department, demanded that intelligence analysts reach pre-determined conclusions about Iraq and WMDs. He cooked the books for war.
Bolton is on the record calling for war with Iran, North Korea, even Cuba! His return to a senior position in government is a return to the unconstitutional, immoral, and failed policies of pre-emptive war.
Make no mistake: the neocons are back and looking for another war. They’ve got the president’s ear. Iran? North Korea? Russia? China? Who’s next for the warmongers?
Copyright © 2018 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
BOSTON, Mass. (March 26, 2018) – Last week, a Massachusetts House committee passed a bill that would put strict limitations on the use of automated license plate reader systems (ALPRs) by the state. Passage into law would also place significant roadblocks in the way of a federal program using states to help track the location of millions of everyday people through pictures of their license plates.
Rep. William Strauss (D) introduced House Bill 1902 (H1902) last year and it carried over into the 2018 session. The legislation would allow the use of ALPRs only for “legitimate law enforcement purposes,” collecting tolls and assessing parking fees. The law defines “legitimate law enforcement purposes” as “detection or investigation of a crime, traffic violation or parking violation; operation of AMBER alerts; or searches for missing or endangered persons.”
On Thursday, the Joint Transportation Committee approved H1902 and sent it to the House for further consideration.
The bill would put strict limitations on the retention and sharing of data gathered by license plate readers. Police would be required to submit any collected data to the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security within 48 hours or destroy it. The proposed law would allow the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to retain ALPR data for 120 days. After that time it must be destroyed, H1902 would allow the executive office to retain information longer only with a warrant or preservation request.
The proposed law would limit access and sharing of stored data. Any data obtained or shared in violation of the law would be inadmissible in court.
“Notwithstanding any general or special law or regulation to the contrary, ALPR data produced, obtained or maintained in knowing violation of this chapter shall not be admitted, offered or cited by any governmental entity for any purpose in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding.”
Final passage of H1902 would prevent the state from creating permanent databases using information collected by ALPRs, and would make it less likely that such data would end up in federal databases.
A similar bill (S2299) is moving through the Senate.
IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS
The ACLU estimates that less than 0.2 percent of plate scans are linked to criminal activity or vehicle registration issues.
As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the federal government, via the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) tracks the location of millions of vehicles. They’ve engaged in this for over eight years, all without a warrant, or even public notice of the policy.
State and local law enforcement agencies operate most of these tracking systems, paid for by federal grant money. The DEA then taps into the local database to track the whereabouts of millions of people – for the simple act of driving – without having to operate a huge network itself.
Since a majority of federal license plate tracking data comes from state and local law enforcement, passage of this legislation would take a major step toward blocking that program from continuing in Massachusetts. The feds can’t access data that doesn’t exist.
“No data means no federal license plate tracking program,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.
Law enforcement generally configures ALPRs to store the photograph, the license plate number, and the date, time, and location of vehicles. But according to records obtained by the ACLU via a Freedom of Information Act request, the DEA also captures photographs of drivers and their passengers.
According to the ACLU:
“One internal 2009 DEA communication stated clearly that the license plate program can provide “the requester” with images that “may include vehicle license plate numbers (front and/or rear), photos of visible vehicle occupants [redacted] and a front and rear overall view of the vehicle.” Clearly showing that occupant photos are not an occasional, accidental byproduct of the technology, but one that is intentionally being cultivated, a 2011 email states that the DEA’s system has the ability to store “up to 10 photos per vehicle transaction including 4 occupant photos.”
With the FBI rolling out facial a nationwide recognition program in 2016, and the federal government building biometric databases, the fact that the feds can potentially access stored photographs of drivers and passengers, along with detailed location data, magnifies the privacy concerns surrounding ALPRs.
Passage of this legislation would represent a good first step toward putting a big dent in federal plans to continue location tracking, and expanding its facial recognition program. The less data the state makes available to the federal government, the less ability they have to track people in Massachusetts, and elsewhere.
WHAT’S NEXT
H1902 now moves to the House Ways and Means Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (March 26, 2018) – Last week, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed two bills to allow terminally ill patients to legally use medical marijuana under the state’s Right to Try law. These new laws take a first step toward nullifying federal cannabis prohibition in effect in the Beehive State.
Rep. Brad Daw (R-Orem) and Sen. Evan Vickers (R-Cedar City) sponsored House Bill 195 (HB195). Under the law, qualifying patients under the Utah Right to Try Act can possess or use cannabis in a medicinal dosage.
Daw and Vickers also introduced House Bill 197 (HB197). This law authorizes the cultivation of cannabis in Utah to supply the medical marijuana program.
Utah passed its Right to Try Act in 2015. Under the law, terminally ill patients can try experimental treatments not yet approved by the FDA. HB195 expands Right to Try to include the option of medical marijuana for these patients. The Right to Try law already nullifies in practice some Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules that deny access to experimental treatments by terminally ill patients. Passage of HB195 and HB197 take the first step toward nullifying federal marijuana prohibition in effect.
On March 7, the Senate approved HB195 by a 19-3 vote. It passed HB197 20-5. With Gov. Gary Herbert’s signature, the laws will go into effect May 8, 2018.
The proposal narrowly made it through the House. It passed HB195 by a 40-26 vote. But in a strange move, the House failed to approve HB197, effectively authorizing medical marijuana for qualifying terminally ill patients, but leaving no way for them to get medicinal cannabis in the state. The initial vote was 36-34. Bills must receive 38 votes to pass the Utah House. After a motion to reconsider was approved, Orem implored his colleagues to pass the legislation.
“This bill becomes the way to supply a genuine cannabis medicine for both those programs. We need to pass this bill if we want to have patients the ability to try both under right to try and under research,” Orem said.
The House narrowly approved HB197 by a 38-32 margin on the second try.
Despite the federal prohibition on marijuana, measures such as HB195 and HB197 remain perfectly constitutional, and the feds can do little if anything to stop them in practice.
LEGALITY
Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.
Legalization of medical marijuana under Right to Try in Utah removes one small layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, but federal prohibition will remain on the books.
FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By curtailing state prohibition, Utah could sweep away a small basis the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.
Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly annual budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution either. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.
A GROWING MOVEMENT
Utah joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.
Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. In January, Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a legislative act.
With 29 states including New Hampshire allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.
“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.
