Tenth Amendment Center: Tenther Tuesday Episode 39: The Stalker Surveillance State is Getting More Aggressive


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

Today is the 558th day that the GOP has failed to repeal Obamacare, or gun control, or end mass, warrantless surveillance. In this episode of Tenther Tuesday, Mike Maharrey (follow) and Michael Boldin (follow) discuss some aggressive government overreach, including TSA and DEA programs stalking innocent travelers and over-the-top efforts to keep surveillance programs secret. Even with all of this going on, a lot of Republicans seem to think things are better constitutionally. As Maharrey and Boldin discuss, you get these kind of bad opinions when you have bad constitutional foundations.

WATCH

SHOW LINKS

JOIN TAC, Support the Constitution and liberty: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members

TSA Quiet Skies Program

DEA License Plate Tracking Program

Maharrey Sued for Asking Questions about Surveillance

Op-Ed: The First Step Toward Limiting Unchecked Surveillance

Jason Spencer on Who is America?

People with Bad Constitutional Foundations End Up with Bad Constitutional Opinions

 


Mike Maharrey
July 31, 2018 at 02:03PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Congressman Calls Out Fed and Treasury Dept. for Dodging Questions About Activities Involving U.S. Gold Reserves


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

WASHINGTON (July 31, 2018) – A member of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee is calling out the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury for dodging questions about their activities involving America’s gold reserves.

In a letter dated July 27, Representative Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) wrote to Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, after receiving perfunctory responses to his April 24 inquiry, noting “a few questions were either not addressed at all or not fully addressed.”

In particular, the Fed and Treasury would not articulate any U.S. policy toward gold and refused to comment on historical U.S. State Department documents pointing to a U.S. policy of “driving gold out of the world financial system in favor of the Federal Reserve Note or Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund.”

In his follow-up letter, Rep. Mooney provided evidence of involvement by the Exchange Stabilization Fund in the gold market and called attention to “the recent correlation of the gold price with the price of the Chinese yuan and the valuation of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights.

“Do these correlations reflect surreptitious intervention in the U.S. currency markets by China and currency manipulation by China?” Mooney asked.

Mooney also provided a 2009 letter from then Fed Governor Kevin M. Warsh acknowledging the existence of Fed documents on gold swaps (while simultaneously refusing to provide them in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee).

Mooney asked Chairman Powell to reconcile the Marsh acknowledgment with his July 12, 2018, letter, including Powell’s assertion that “The Fed does not engage, nor has it ever engaged, in gold swaps.”

Rep. Mooney noted the Treasury did not appropriately answer his question regarding prior audits of America’s gold reserves. In his July 11, 2018 response, Acting Assistant Treasury Secretary Brad Bailey merely discussed audits of gold compartment seals, and Mooney responded that a cursory examination of seals is “neither an inventory nor an audit of our nation’s gold.”

“This obfuscation by the Fed and the Treasury is unacceptable, and we are encouraged Congressman Mooney is calling them out on their game playing,” Sound Money Defense League and Money Metals Exchange president Stefan Gleason said. “The American people are entitled to transparency and accountability when it comes to the status and use of America’s gold reserves.”

Rep. Mooney has emerged as one of the most vocal members of the U.S. House of Representatives on issues such as inflation and the central role of gold in restoring sound money, stable prices, and fiscal discipline.

“The purchasing power of our currency has fallen some 97 percent since Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, with an acceleration in the rate of decline occurring since the early 1970s when the final link to gold was severed,” Mooney wrote.

Congressman Mooney’s July 27 and April 24 letters – as well the responses from the Fed and Treasury to Mooney’s first letter – can be accessed here.


Jp Cortez
July 31, 2018 at 01:51PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Trump’s Tweets End the Myth of Fed Independence


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

by Ron Paul

President Trump’s recent Tweets expressing displeasure with the Federal Reserve’s (minor) interest rate increases led to accusations that President Trump is undermining the Federal Reserve’s independence. But, the critics ignore the fact that Federal Reserve “independence” is one of the great myths of American politics.
When it comes to intimidating the Federal Reserve, President Trump pales in comparison to President Lyndon Johnson. After the Federal Reserve increased interest rates in 1965, President Johnson summoned then-Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin to Johnson’s Texas ranch where Johnson shoved him against the wall. Physically assaulting the Fed chairman is probably a greater threat to Federal Reserve independence than questioning the Fed’s policies on Twitter.

While Johnson is an extreme example, history is full of cases where presidents pressured the Federal Reserve to adopt policies compatible with the presidents’ agendas — and helpful to their reelection campaigns. Presidents have been pressuring the Fed since its creation. President Warren Harding called on the Fed to lower rates. Richard Nixon was caught on tape joking with then-Fed chair Arthur Burns about Fed independence. And Lloyd Bentsen, President Bill Clinton’s first Treasury secretary, bragged about a “gentleman’s agreement” with then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan.

President Trump’s call for low interest rates contradicts Trump’s earlier correct criticism of the Fed’s low interest rate policy as harming middle-class Americans. Low rates can harm the middle class, but they also benefit spend-and-borrow politicians and their favorite special interests by lowering the federal government’s borrowing costs. Significant rate increases could make it impossible for the government to service its existing debt, thus making it difficult for President Trump and Congress to continue increasing welfare and warfare spending.

President Trump will have a long-lasting impact on monetary policy. Two of the three sitting members of the Fed’s board were appointed by President Trump. Two more of Trump’s nominees are pending in the Senate. The nomination of economist Marvin Goodfriend may be in jeopardy because Goodfriend advocates “negative interest rates,” which is a Federal Reserve-imposed tax on savings. If Goodfriend is defeated, President Trump can just nominate another candidate. President Trump will also be able to nominate two other board members. Therefore, by the end of his first term, President Trump could appoint six of the Federal Reserve’s seven board members.

The specter of a Federal Reserve Board dominated by Trump appointees should cause some to rethink the wisdom of allowing a secretive central bank to exercise near-monopoly control over monetary policy. Fear of the havoc a Trumpian Fed could cause may even lead some to support the Audit the Fed legislation and the growing movement to allow Americans to “exit” the Federal Reserve System by using alternatives to fiat money, such as cryptocurrencies and gold.

Given the Federal Reserve’s power to help or hinder a president’s economic agenda and reelection prospects, it is no surprise that presidents try to influence Fed policy. But, instead of worrying about protecting the Fed from President Trump, we should all worry about protecting the American people from the Fed. The first step is passing the Audit the Fed bill, which Congress should do before adjourning to hit the campaign trail. This will let the people know the full truth about America’s monetary policy. Auditing, then ending, the Fed is key to permanently draining the welfare-warfare swamp.


Tenth Amendment Center
July 31, 2018 at 09:54AM

Daily Journal: Inoculation To Indoctrination – The Living Breathing Lie


Our Special Back to School series to prepare your students to defeat the lies of the public school system. One of the most destructive of these lies is that the Constitution is a “living breathing document.” Today we will show you how to destroy that argument once and for all. Link referenced in the Show: […]

The post Daily Journal: Inoculation To Indoctrination – The Living Breathing Lie appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.



Read the full article at krisannehall.com July 31, 2018 at 12:19PM

Tenth Amendment Center: People With Bad Constitutional Foundations End Up with Bad Constitutional Opinions


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

A lot of people seem to believe Pres. Donald Trump is some kind of limited government constitutionalist. He’s not.

The other day, I got an email from a guy who embraces this idea. He claimed Trump “unwittingly embraces the fundamental ideals of the founders: ie. a smaller unobtrusive laissez-faire government, with emphasis on individual liberty via merit.”

People who have a poor constitutional foundation end up with really convoluted constitutional opinions – like this guy. Whether you like Trump or not, you simply can’t believe he “embraces the fundamental ideals of the founders” if you understand what those ideals actually were.

For instance, Trump has continued the federal surveillance state unabated. But general warrants that authorized British agents to enter and search homes and businesses without any probable cause was one of the first flashpoints between colonists and the British government more than a decade before the colonists declared independence. These warrants never expired and didn’t specify what was to be searched for. Writs of assistance were completely open-ended. The Fourth Amendment was proposed and ratified as a direct result of this struggle. A president who embraced the fundamental ideals of the founders would have shut down the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program on day one. Trump didn’t. In fact, he extended it and nominated a Supreme Court justice who helped write the Patriot Act.

Or how about war? The U.S. dropped 44,000 bombs in 2017 without a constitutionally required declaration of war. The framers of the Constitution deliberately withheld the power to make war from the president. As James Madison asserted in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:

The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.

Trump’s bombing campaigns do not reflect the “fundamental ideals of the founders.”

Of course, the right to keep and bear arms was certainly a fundamental ideal held by the founding generation. The people of the states insisted on ratifying an amendment that prohibits the federal government from enforcing any law that infringes on that right. Yet the Trump administration has ramped up enforcement of unconstitutional federal gun laws. During the first year of the Trump administration, the ATF investigated 3,349 more firearms cases than it did during the last year of the Obama presidency.

And most recently, Trump proposed a $12 billion bailout for farmers. The administration claims the the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, a Depression-era funding program that doesn’t require approval from Congress, authorizes the handout. Of course, it doesn’t. The Constitution delegates no such power to the federal government.

I could go on. The Trump administration has continued the unconstitutional drug war, ramped up asset forfeiture and added billions of dollars to the federal budget.

None of this reflects the “fundamental ideals of the founders.” None of it is unobtrusive. And you can’t define any of it as remotely laissez-faire. Only somebody with a really shoddy constitutional foundation could make such an obviously absurd statement.


Mike Maharrey
July 30, 2018 at 10:24PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Good Morning Liberty 07-30-18: The STATES Act, Local Surveillance and War in Afghanistan


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

On this inaugural edition of Good Morning Liberty, host Michael Boldin talks about an unnecessary federal “law” giving states “permission” on legalization, an update on Lexington suing Michael Maharrey over their surveillance programs, and a ramp up of the air war in Afghanistan.

SHOW LINKS
An Unnecessary Law: STATES Act
Lexington Police refuse to release info on surveillance cameras, appeal judge’s order
US Airstrikes Continue to Rise Precipitously in Afghanistan

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/


Michael Boldin
July 30, 2018 at 12:48PM

Daily Journal PT 3 Inoculation to Indoctrination: Slavery In America


Part 3 of the KrisAnne Hall Special Back to School Edition. We need to spread this inoculation against the indoctrination perpetrated by the public American Education system. This episode will provide the foundation to defeat the lies that American founders were all pro-slavery and the only contribution black American made to America’s founding were as […]

The post Daily Journal PT 3 Inoculation to Indoctrination: Slavery In America appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.



Read the full article at krisannehall.com July 26, 2018 at 02:37AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Report: Trump Administration Ramps up Enforcement of Federal Gun Laws


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

Conventional wisdom holds that Republicans reliably protect the Second Amendment. In fact, one of the reasons conservatives said it was imperative to elect Donald Trump was that he would defend our right to keep and bear arms. A Hillary White House would shred the Second Amendment and aggressively come after our guns — so we were told.

But the reality doesn’t stack up to the rhetoric. In fact, during Trump’s first term, ATF enforcement of federal gun laws increased in every single category compared to the last year Obama was in the White House.

We can start with the number of firearms cases investigated. In 2016, the final year of the Obama administration, the ATF investigated 31,853 firearms cases. During Trump’s first year, the agency investigated 35,302. That’s 3,349 more firearms cases than under Obama, a 10.81% increase. (See Footnote 1)

We see similar increases in other enforcement categories during Trump’s first year. There were 786 more cases recommended for prosecution, 789 more indicted cases, and 630 more defendants convicted. (See Footnote 2)

The ATF also investigates arson, cases involving explosives, and alcohol and tobacco cases, but these make up a small percentage of the total. Under Trump, 92% of the cases investigated by the ATF involved firearms. It was slightly less under Obama – 90%.

ATF enforcement of federal gun laws under Trump increased at roughly the same trajectory as it did during the last three years of Obama’s second term. In other words, the NRA-backed, GOP protector of the Second Amendment was no better than the Democratic Party gun-grabber,  and continued to ramp up enforcement of federal gun control.

Some might argue it would have been worse if Hillary Clinton had won. And they might say, “At least Trump hasn’t signed any new gun control into law.” (Not that he didn’t advocate for it i.e. the bump stock ban and “strengthened” background checks.) But if you support the Second Amendment, isn’t it a problem that the president who’s supposed to be the good guy continues to ratchet up enforcement of existing unconstitutional federal laws?

A true supporter of the right to keep and bear arms would do better.

The bottom line is we can’t trust Republicans in Washington D.C. to uphold the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, it appears the same problem appears with Republicans in state legislatures as well.

When Barack Obama was president, Republicans in state legislatures introduced dozens of bills to nullify federal gun control by refusing to help with federal enforcement. After Trump won the White House, those efforts virtually stopped, even though not one single federal gun control law has been repealed.

During the last two years of the Obama administration, there were more than 50 bills directly pushing back against federal gun control introduced in 22 states. During the two state legislative sessions since the Trump administration took over, the number of bills dropped by more than half and the number of states nearly did too.

Not only that, the bills that were filed after Trump took office didn’t go anywhere. Governors signed five bills into law taking on federal gun control during the last two Obama years. Since then — zero. And during the two legislative sessions since the GOP took full control of D.C., only three bills to nullify federal gun control even got a committee hearing.

If you didn’t know better, you’d think there weren’t any more threats the right to keep and bear arms. And yet the federal gun control acts of 1934, 1968 and 1986, along with other various laws violating the Second Amendment, remain on the books. And they’re still being enforced by the feds just as aggressively as they were when Obama was president. 

By and large, Republicans use the Second Amendment as a campaign prop, but they do very little to actually stop the federal government from infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. The barely hold the line on new gun control and they don’t do anything to challenge the unconstitutional laws already on the books.

Footnote 1

All enforcement statistics were taken from the following ATF Fact Sheets

2014

2015

2016

2017

Footnote 2

These numbers include all cases investigated by the ATF, including arson, explosives, and alcohol and tobacco. In 2017, 92% of the  ATF cases investigated involved firearms. In 2016, 90% of the cases were firearms related.


Mike Maharrey
July 29, 2018 at 02:46AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Permission Not Needed: CBD Legalization Despite Federal Prohibition


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center
The feds maintain an almost complete ban on commercially-available CBD products. But a market has still grown - and is thriving.
Michael Boldin
July 28, 2018 at 07:12PM

PT 2: Inoculation to Indoctrination: The Greatest Check On Federal Power


Our Back to School Series Continues! Our founders anticipated that one day our federal government may grow out of control so they established a very powerful check on federal power. Madison calls it the most powerful control of the feds on earth. Learn this truth and get the power! Get Your Check & Balance Education! http://bit.ly/CheckingFederalPower […]

The post PT 2: Inoculation to Indoctrination: The Greatest Check On Federal Power appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.



Read the full article at krisannehall.com July 26, 2018 at 02:27AM

Tenth Amendment Center: The Tenth Amendment Solution to Political “Civil War”


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

If there was a thermometer that measured political polarization, the mercury would have already busted out the glass top spraying most of us either red or blue.

There’s no middle ground. According to many who are playing identity politics game, you are either a “Libtard” or a “Nazi.” Some have even suggested we’re on the verge of another Civil War. This polarization has left many pondering: How did we get here? Could it have been avoided? Can anything be done?

Now, many on the left will point to the rise of Donald Trump being the source of much of this polarization. No doubt, Trump’s election has contributed, but this was building way before Trump ever announced his intentions of running.

Sir Issac Newton’s third law of physics states: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This seems to be true of politics as well. One of the reasons the Nazis formed the Sturmabteilung (aka the Brown Shirts) was due to violent communists disrupting their meetings. The communists pushed – the Nazis reacted.

In 1995, the leftist organization, By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) formed. This activist organization has a history of denying people’s rights through disruptions, violence, and property damage. In 2002, the American Civil Liberties Union turned up FBI documents alleging links to terrorist organizations. BAMN has also been associated with Antifa whose activities have been described as “domestic terrorist violence”.

In my opinion, the violence at Charlottesville wouldn’t have happened if not for these previous activities by organizations like BAMN and Antifa. Just like the German communists and the Nazis. BAMN/Antifa probably feels totally justified in their actions. They may even have some valid concerns. However, the violence committed by Eric Canton (Antifa), Yvette Felarca (BAMN) and James Alex Fields Jr. (Charlottesville’s car driver) isn’t justified.

There have been plenty of other incidents emphasizing this political polarization.

For example, Hunter Richard, 16, was recently with some friends at San Antonio Whataburger wearing a MAGA hat. Kino Jimenez, 30, found Richard’s hat offensive and stole the hat off of Richard’s head and then threw a drink at the minor while yelling obscenities. Then Jimenez left Whataburger with Richard’s hat, claiming that he was going to burn the hat in his fireplace. (Texas weather in July????) Richard posted a video of the event online. Police arrested Jimenez has and his employer terminated his employment. Jimenez was also a member of the Green Party, which rescinded his membership because of his actions.

There is no way to prove that Maxine Waters’ recent comments urging supporters to confront Trump administration officials influenced Jimenez, but her rhetoric surely isn’t helping the current climate.

Violence and confrontational politics aren’t new. This tension has been building for decades, even going back to abortion clinic bombings. Weather Underground bombings, and many other prior activities.

The incidents highlighted are symptoms of a bigger problem. The real question is: what is fueling this polarization? This country is a pressure cooker which is about to explode sending the lid only God knows where.

Is there a way to lower steam?

To understand how to do this, we first must investigate why the heat is building?

The Supreme Court provides a clue.

Justice Kennedy’s recent announcement of his retirement threw many on the left into a tizzy. Why? For decades, the left has used the Supreme Court to push much of its agenda by using expanding definitions of various clauses and amendments of the Constitution inconsistent with the original intent, including the original meaning of the 14th Amendment. Now, the political left fears Trump will appoint another Judge Gorsuch. By the end of his administration, Trump could mold the Supreme Court into a 7-2 majority in favor of the conservatives. This Court could then reverse many of the progressive’s agenda-driven successes.

Now, did the left take into account that their successes using judicial activism might create some sort of pushback by those who oppose their ideology? Again, see Newton’s Law above.

It should be noted that the left’s strategy using the Court’s in this way sort of backfired on them when it came to SCOTUS opinions involving gun control. If the federal government has the authority to “incorporate” the Bill of Rights onto the states, it follows that the individual states are limited on the type of gun controls laws that they can pass because of the Second Amendment. Oops.

When Trump was elected, many on the left were outraged and protested. So much so that some in California actually discussed seceding. Well, many conservatives weren’t happy with eight years of President Obama. Many progressives weren’t thrilled with eight years of President Bush. I could keep going.

What would happen if Hillary Clinton was elected? Nearly half the country would have been angry like the other half the country was angry over Trump. Hillary could have tipped the Supreme Court solidly to the left. Conservatives would have objected and probably freaked out just like progressives did when Kennedy announced his retirement.

It should be pointed out that it naive to think that a “liberal” Court molded by Hillary wouldn’t reconsider “conservative” opinions relating to issues like gun control just like progressives fear aTrump’s court will overturn Roe v. Wade and other key opinions favoring the left.

Ironically, just like California, many Texas Republicans would have favored seceding if Hillary had won.

So, it doesn’t matter which party controls the White House, Congress or the federal courts, half the country is going to be annoyed. See the problem? The problem is that politicians in Washington D.C. have far too much control of our lives and we know it. With this control, those of the “other” party can force their objectionable views on the rest of us.

The answer: The Tenth Solution – decentralization.

The Tenth Amendment Center is now twelve years old. During our history, we have kept on the same message the whole time: Decentralize politics based on the Tenth Amendment. Much of what the federal government is involved in constitutionally should never have left the individual state’s jurisdiction.

This is true for many issues from gun control, to marijuana, and (do I dare to say it?) abortion. If we followed the Tenther prescription, states like Texas could remain conservative and California could remain progressive without interference from each other. Neither state could use Washington D.C. to force its ideology on the other. The dreaded polarization would decrease.

In our society, corporations are forced to compete for our dollars. Why not make the individual states do the same for our tax dollars? If you are a conservative living in California, you can choose to use your natural right of free speech to convince others of your position, you can drive change through the state’s political system, or you can just move to Texas. The same is true if you’re a progressive living in Texas. You can pick any of the 50 states and move to one that agrees most with your worldview.

Populations will move to the states with the best ideas! And greater liberty!

Is it too late? Maybe. I don’t know. What I do know is if we don’t start implementing the Tenth Solution, the polarization thermometer won’t be repaired and this pressure cooker will blow. The Tenth Solution is the best way to turn down the heat.


John Lambert
July 27, 2018 at 12:36PM

Tenth Amendment Center: It’s Up to Us to Protect Our Gun Rights


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

The federal courts are so appallingly bad at upholding the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights that when they seemingly get things right for once, it’s hard not to celebrate. However, we must never lose sight of the fact that it’s our responsibility to defend our rights, not a bunch of politically connected federal lawyers. And we also need to remember that what they do one day in our favor they can easily undo the next.

We need to keep this in mind when we consider a recent federal appeals court ruling that overturned a Hawaii state law regulating firearms possession outside the home. In many ways, the court ruling was praiseworthy; it correctly pointed out that the Second Amendment’s text protects not only the right to “keep,” but also to “bear” arms, meaning it protects the right of gun owners to both possess guns in their homes and take them out in public.

But there’s a fly in the ointment. The court asserted that the state law violated the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states. The ruling was based on the presumption of incorporation, a judicial invention that applies the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th Amendment.

This may seem subtle, but the nuance is critical. It presumes that a federal court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment determines gun rights for over 300 million people in the United States. The problem is it vests the federal government with power it was never intended to wield. It wrecks the constitutional system and centralizes authority in a way that would have horrified the founding generation. Centralized power is the greatest threat to liberty.

Had the opinion concerned a federal law, the discussion would be different. Or, had it been a state court striking down the law because it violated the Hawaiian Constitution’s Bill of Rights – which includes the Second Amendment’s exact language – that would also minimize these long-term issues. But allowing a federal court to decide a state matter is a recipe for trouble.

The history of the Incorporation Doctrine shows that the concept is recent in origin, and it confers upon the federal courts’ enormous authority over the states that was not intended by the Founding Fathers. With it, a handful of federal judges now claim the power to dictate policy for millions of people, rather than allowing the 50 states to set their own laws and govern their citizens independently.

The belief that the federal Bill of Rights applies to state governments undermines the legitimacy of state constitutions, which all contain bills of rights that are similar to the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution and often include more restrictions on government.

Yet, there is a more fundamental reason we shouldn’t cheer this ruling – or we should at least be wary of putting any faith in it. By doing so, we are essentially putting our rights in the hands of government employees and subjecting them to the whims of politically connected attorneys.

Hawaii’s state law violated its own Constitution. Therefore, it was an immoral, illegal and unjust law. Gun owners had no duty to obey it. They didn’t need to run to the federal courts. The could have nullified it just by refusing to comply. We need to look no further than marijuana activists to see that this is the most effective way to bring about long-term change.

TAC Communications Director Mike Maharrey summed it up well:

Marijuana activists started in California where there was a great deal of popular support and passed Prop 215 in 1996. When the feds cracked down, they didn’t give up. When the Supreme Court ruled against them, they didn’t panic. When the DEA closed down one medical marijuana dispensary, they opened two more. They just kept pushing on.

Today, more than half the states in the country have legalized marijuana for medical use. Eight states have legalized marijuana completely.

State, local and individual action has effectively nullified federal marijuana prohibition in half the country. Heck, they’ve even nullified it in the federal city of Washington D.C. Congress can pass all the laws it wants. Presidents can sign executive orders to their heart’s content. The Supreme Court can issue its opinions. But without state and local cooperation, the federal government can’t enforce a damn thing.

The ATF employs about 2,400 special agents. Do you really think that small group of people can impose federal gun laws on more than 300 million reluctant people encompassing 3,794,083 square miles without state and local cooperation? They couldn’t enforce the marijuana laws once people and states simply started ignoring them. They won’t be able to enforce the gun laws either.

The gun people need learn a thing or two from the weed people. Stop obsessing over federal action and Supreme Court rulings. Stop the Supreme Court panic. Stop acting like anyone elected will forever end your gun rights.

Gun owners need to stop depending on courts, legislatures, and even citizen initiatives to uphold their rights. They need to take a page out of the marijuana activist playbook. They need to get defiant and bold. They need to assert their rights no matter what anyone tells them.

If they’re not willing to defy a law regulating how they carry their guns outside their homes, what’s the point of having firearms in the first place?

If we aren’t willing to exercise our own rights, we simply become LARPers pretending to defend them. When we rely on the courts, we’re turning to people to defend our right to keep and bear arms who could just as easily take away those rights with the same power we’re cheering when it works in our favor.

We need to take to heart the motto of the great Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises: Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito – Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.


TJ Martinell
July 27, 2018 at 11:24AM

Tenth Amendment Center: What Does It Mean for the Senate to Give Its “Advice and Consent?”


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

The Constitution provides that presidents nominate officers and make treaties. But nominations and treaties become effective only “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

Many have argued that the word “Advice” means the president must ask the Senate to make recommendations before submitting his proposals. Others believe the Senate may create guidelines or criteria the president must follow.

But that has not been the historical practice. Generally the president has merely submitted nominations and treaties to the Senate without prior consultation—other than politically expedient, informal consultation with certain influential Senators.

Can we recapture what the framers and ratifiers meant by “Advice and Consent?” And if so, is historical practice correct? Or are those correct who believe the Constitution requires prior senatorial input?

My new article in Federalist Society Review examines a wide range founding-era documents in search of an answer. I reviewed 18th century dictionaries, royal charters, early state constitutions, wills and other legal instruments, and legislative materials. The article concludes that the historical practice is correct.

During the 18th century, when “advice” (and the verb “advise”) appeared in the same phrase with the preposition “with,” the word meant deliberation or consideration. In fact, the correct rendering of the constitutional phrase is not “Advice and Consent of the Senate” but “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.

And what it signifies is “with the deliberation and consent of the Senate.” The word “advice” referred to normal legislative debate and consideration.

You can read the new article here.


Rob Natelson
July 27, 2018 at 09:44AM

Tenth Amendment Center: The Struggle for American Independence: Liberty or Death!


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

In this episode, I cover the happenings of colonial Virginia over the course of 1775. These events ran in parallel to those in Boston immediately prior to and during the confrontation between the colonial militias and the British regulars at Lexington and Concord.

Particular energy is devoted to Patrick Henry’s persuasive oratory and the uprising against Lord Dunmore. Virginia’s situation demonstrates that political radicalism was certainly not confined to Boston, and patriot sympathies were pervasive in the Old Dominion.

WATCH

Recommended Readings

Patrick Henry: Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death Speech

Murray Rothbard: Conceived in Liberty

Kevin Gutzman: Virginia’s American Revolution

 


Dave Benner
July 26, 2018 at 10:53AM

Daily Journal: PT 1 Inoculation to Indoctrination: The Supremacy Clause


Today we begin a “Back To School” series called the Inoculation to Indoctrination. In Part 1 we will teach the true meaning of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, correcting the errors taught in modern textbooks & classrooms Get the Constitution Week Training here: http://bit.ly/ConstitutionWeekDVD 

The post Daily Journal: PT 1 Inoculation to Indoctrination: The Supremacy Clause appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.



Read the full article at krisannehall.com July 26, 2018 at 02:19AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Path to Liberty: Nullify Them into Oblivion


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

The following is based on a speech given to the LP Mises Caucus “Take Human Action Bash” in New Orleans on June 30, 2018

In 1996, voters in California passed Prop 215, the “compassionate use act,” to legalize marijuana for limited medical purposes.  In the run up to the vote, three presidents came out to California to explain that voters couldn’t do this.

Why not?  According to their messaging, the supremacy clause of the constitution says that federal law always wins.  And marijuana is illegal under federal law.

Well, that marketing campaign didn’t work out too well for them.

When Prop 215 passed, the message from the Clinton administration was the same – we don’t recognize your state law. Attorney General Janet Reno said, ”We want to make clear that Federal law still applies.”  

An LA Times article from Jan. 1997 repeated the same message, noting that “Federal officials … vowed to pursue California physicians who recommend marijuana for their patients.”

The threats from the Clinton administration didn’t stop people in California, or other states for that matter. And by the end of his term, seven states authorized medical marijuana in defiance of federal law.

From there, the Bush administration ramped it up, taking a hard-line public stance asserting federal law ruled the roost on weed, conducting roughly 200 marijuana raids in states over his two terms. And in 2005, the Supreme Court also affirmed this uncompromising federal prohibition in a famous case known as Gonzales v. Raich.

ANGEL RAICH

Angel has an inoperable brain tumor – she’s going to die from it.  But her doctor recommended that she treat it with marijuana. So under the compassionate use act, her caregiver Diane grew six plants in her backyard to help treat Angel’s tumor.

Well, the DEA – with the help of the Butte County Sheriff’s department – that’s local law enforcement in Northern California – came to Diane’s home and destroyed those 6 plants.  

Diane and Angel sued the federal government and it went all the way to the supreme court, where her doctor declared under oath that Angel’s life was at stake if she could not continue to use marijuana.

How did the court respond?  Well under the heroic leadership of conservative icon Justice Scalia, the court held that growing six plants in your own backyard under state law, never buying or selling them, and then consuming them in your own home qualified as “interstate commerce,” that could be regulated, controlled, and banned by the federal government.

PUSHING ON

But Angel didn’t stop treating herself because the federal government said she had to – she publicly announced that she’d continue to use marijuana and work to help others who chose to.

None of this federal enforcement stopped the trend in the states either. By the time Bush left office – even with the supreme court fully on his side – there were 13 states defying the feds on marijuana.

From there, the Obama administration ramped it up still further.

Now I know the propaganda is strong in this country – and for some reason, there are people who want you to believe that Obama took a hands off approach on weed.

This is a total lie.  

By the end of just his first term, his administration conducted more raids – 270 – and spent more on federal enforcement efforts than the previous three terms of Bush and Clinton combined.

Even with Obama’s heavy ramp up, at the end of his two terms, there were 29 states with some form of marijuana legalization on the books.

Last year, West Virginia made it 30. Earlier this year Utah made it 31. And on June 26, even after over a year of threats from Jeff Sessions, Oklahoma became state number 32.

COLORADO & CALIFORNIA

Just about 5 weeks before Colorado’s retail marijuana law went into effect in Jan 2014, Obama and the DEA sent a warning shot by conducting the biggest set of marijuana raids in Colorado history.

That didn’t work either – today, it’s a $1.2 billion business per year.  

Even Colorado’s massive sales are small compared to California, which slowly started retail sales just this year.  As a medical product, marijuana is the #1 cash crop in the state – about $2.8 billion in sales per year. That’s more than milk, almonds and grapes – combined.

Recreational marijuana is expected to hit around $5 billion/year in 2019 or 2020.

There are over 700 licensed marijuana shops in Los Angeles alone, with hundreds more operating without government permission. That’s more than Starbucks and 7-11… combined.

We ran some numbers, and while this isn’t exact, it’s pretty close – it would take about 40% of the DEA’s yearly budget to shut down just Los Angeles.

Here’s how I put it back in 2015:

“Even in face of increasing federal enforcement measures, the states found the winning path. It’s only a matter of time before they overwhelm federal enforcement capabilities completely, and the feds will have to act like they’ve decided to drop the issue just to save face.”

And that’s exactly what we’re on the verge of seeing happen today.

LONG-RUN VICTORY

I could spend the entire day giving you examples of heroes like Angel Raich – instead I hope you keep her in mind and this advice from Murray Rothbard whenever you’re working for liberty: 

For the libertarian, the main task of the present epoch is to cast off his needless and debilitating pessimism, to set his sights on long-run victory and to set about the road to its attainment.

Our long-run victory is liberty, but it’s not going to happen overnight.  I want the government people to get the hell out of my life, and the only way that’s going to happen is if we work together to nullify them into oblivion.


Michael Boldin
July 25, 2018 at 01:28PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Interstate Agreement Scheme to Elect President By Popular Vote Is Unconstitutional


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

There has been a strong push to do away with the Electoral College in recent years. One of the more interesting proposals is the “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.” Not only does it attempt to circumvent the constitutional process of electing a president, it actually is effectively an attempt to amend how we amend the Constitution itself.

The advocates of this agreement claim that when a sufficient number of states sign on, the election of the president will be decided by the total number of votes, irrespective of the sates in which those votes were cast. The purpose of the agreement is to circumvent election of the president by the majority of the electoral delegates of all states in the Electoral College.

The number of electoral delegates is proportioned by the number of senators and House delegates in each state. The Constitution designed the presidential election process so that the majority of the electoral delegates can, in fact, on at least some occasions, seat a president who (intentionally) would not have a majority of the total votes. But under the Electoral College process, the nominee will always have a majority of states in proportion to their allowed number of congressional delegates. The electoral delegate method was selected by the framers of the Constitution in part so that a small number of states with larger populations could not elect a president who did not represent “the whole” of the country. The electoral delegates today still serve the exact purpose. The system of specifically selected electoral delegates remains an important part of what makes the U.S. constitutional system a representative government.

The advocates of the agreement note that there have been five elections in which the president was elected without a majority of the total votes cast. The advocates of the agreement, for whatever their own purposes, therefore want to eliminate this original part of the Constitution. But to properly amend the Constitution we must follow the Constitution’s Article V, which reads in part:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; …

There are therefore two processes to amend the Constitution. Either at least two-thirds of the states must propose a convention for amendments, or three-quarters of the states must agree to an amendment proposed by Congress.

The agreement advocates use neither of those constitutional amendment processes. Instead, it advocates that states should agree to a text called the “Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote.” The Agreement Article 11-9 states:

This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes.

Their Article IV-1 states:

This agreement shall take effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted this agreement in substantially the same form and the enactments by such states have taken effect in each state.

Agreement article 11-9 mandates a state accepting the agreement must appoint their electoral delegates in a manner that causes them to vote for whomever the majority of the popular vote selects. There is nothing in Article 11-9 that requires that states that together have “a majority of the electoral votes” be a collection of the states that equal either two-thirds or three-quarters of the states. In fact, nothing in Article 11-9 requires a state accepting the agreement to ratify any changes to the Constitution.

The agreement Article IV-1 has a similar impact: when a set of states whose votes are together at least a majority of the electoral seats, there is nothing in Article IV-1 that requires that this set of states having those votes be either two third of three quarters of the total states, and there is nothing in Article IV-1 that requires any of the states accepting the agreement to therefore ratify an amendment causing a change in how the Constitution’s Article V amendment process would be changed.

Thus, in simple form, the “agreement” is simply a way for a small set of states with large total population to circumvent the carefully conceived Electoral College process, and to claim that their large populations allows them to control the election of the president. It is exactly what the Electoral College was designed to prevent. Many previous attempts to revise the Constitution to allow election of the president by the most populous states have failed. This agreement is simply another such device.

The proponents of the agreement may believe they have a way to avoid the need for a constitutional amendment. The Constitution does allow for agreements among the states, subject to approval by Congress

In a delightfully long (over 1100 pages) document, the advocates of the agreement make many claims. Some might even be correct. For example while most U.S. states presently use some form of “winner take all” election to nominate the presidential electors of each state, based on the electoral results of that state — states can change those state-level processes. In fact, the agreement itself might initiate such change for those states that agree to it. The wondrous document also claims that if an interstate agreement does something, and another party is harmed, that harm alone would not give the “outsiders” the right to challenge the meaning of agreement. But that argument is false. Implementation of this agreement would directly violate constitutional provisions directing the how the president is elected.

The result of the proposed agreement under both its Article III-9 and IV-1 would be that states with a majority of the popular vote would have their will imposed. In effect, the states that are parties to the agreement would effectively elect the president. But Amendment 12 of the Constitution states that the votes of all states’ electors are counted, not just a select group of electors from select that signs an interstate agreement. If the result of following the agreement results in a different president then following the Constitution’s Amendment 12, then the electors of the states who did not accept the agreement will find their constitutional rights under the electoral college violated. All states are entitled to have Amendment 12 carried out, not the terms of an interstate compact.

In fact, the agreement would imply two different amendments to the Constitution. It implicitly amends the constitutional process for the selection of the president. But it also effectively amends how the constitution is itself amended. The agreement implies that any set of states can change the Constitution by simply forming a compact. The agreement itself does not say that, but if the proposed changes in election of the president were accepted, then theoretically any constitutional amendment could be done in this form.

And since any agreement among states also requires the approval of Congress, this also implies another change, or more likely uncertainly, on what percentage of congressional approval must be applied, if and when Congress seeks to approve this specific “Amendment” – is it a majority, or two-thirds, or three quarters? And, how is an amendment to change how to amend the constitution to be treated at all, if the document under which it is transmitted is not itself an instrument to amend the Constitution?

The potential excitement of the press on the subsequent Supreme Court action to uphold the text of the Constitution, under what seems to be a strongly originalist set of court members, might be exciting, but the outcome easily predictable. The agreement would fail, both for how to elect the president, as well as for changing how the Constitution itself is amended.

The advocates of the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote are engaged in a useless exercise.

 


Paul Ballonoff
July 25, 2018 at 12:12PM

Tenth Amendment Center: City of Lexington Wants to Keep Fighting Me Over Surveillance Documents


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

After losing yet another round in Fayette Circuit Court, the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government has decided to take its fight to keep its “mobile surveillance cameras” a secret to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. And I plan to keep fighting.

On June 19, Fayette County Circuit Court Judge John Reynolds issued an order granting a motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed against me and ordered the Lexington Police Department to release documents related to 29 surveillance cameras it owns and operates.

Reynolds said the city did not meet its burden of proof and “failed to assert an applicable provision of the KRS or other binding precedent which would allow the denial of the information requested by Maharrey.”

The LFUCG asked for reconsideration and entered a motion to alter, amend or vacate the judgment. After a hearing on June 22, Reynolds overruled the city’s motion and once again ordered the Lexington Police Department to turn over documents related to the cameras.

Instead of ending the fight and complying with the judge’s order, the city filed a notice of appeal on July 23. The case will now move to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

I’m disappointed, but not surprised. For whatever reason, the city has dug its heels in and won’t back down – even after getting smacked down by the attorney general’s office and a circuit court judge – twice. It makes you wonder what they are so desperate to hide.

The LFUCG claims revealing any information at all about these super-secret surveillance cameras will jeopardize officer safety. At one point, city attorney Michael Sanner claimed the police department would have to buy new equipment if it has to disclose the type of cameras or the policies guiding their use. The hysterics reached a pinnacle during the second hearing when Sanner claimed revealing information about the cameras could jeopardize officer safety all over the country.

Not only does the open records statute not support the city’s basis for exempting these documents, they whole officer safety thing just doesn’t seem plausible. The lawyers at the AG’s office didn’t find it plausible. Judge Reynolds didn’t find it plausible. Perhaps a panel of appellate court judges will find it plausible. I guess we’ll find out.

The lesson in all of this is that we should have had this discussion before the police department ever acquired and started using these cameras. I shouldn’t have to get sued in order to find out how the city surveils the community. Furthermore, the city should not operate this kind of potentially invasive technology without firm policies in place directing how, when and where it’s used, and establishing concrete policies directing how information is stored and shared.

I started We See You Watching Lexington after the city installed cameras at the Berry Hill Skate Park last summer. I was concerned the city might be operating even more invasive surveillance programs without oversight and transparency. The response I got from the city and this ongoing lawsuit amplifies my concerns.

We can easily solve this problem by putting a policy in place to guide the future acquisition and use of surveillance technology. We See You Watching Lexington has proposed a local ordinance that would take the first step toward limiting the unchecked use of surveillance technologies. But the city council needs to take action. So far, it hasn’t shown much interest in addressing the issue. I guess it’s easier to let the city attorneys fight a costly legal battle than actually do the work necessary to establish accountability and transparency.

This is actually part of a broader movement of privacy localism that is taking on the surveillance state. The TAC has been involved in the Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) initiative from the beginning and helped draft model legislation for a local surveillance ordinance that creates some level of transparency and oversight over local surveillance programs.

Here’s my challenge to you. Take what I’ve done and build on it. Get involved in your local community. Fight. If you don’t know how, we’ve got some resources to help. I put together a series of short podcasts called Activism 101. They offer simple step-by-step advice for starting activism in your own town. You can check out that series HERE.


Mike Maharrey
July 25, 2018 at 12:08PM

Daily Journal: KrisAnne Hall On The Convention of States Discussion


KrisAnne addresses the misconceptions and false statements made by people regarding her positions and statements on the Convention of the States. In the last segment KrisAnne addresses the important (miraculous?) opinion out of the 9th circuit declaring open carry a protected right. www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com  

The post Daily Journal: KrisAnne Hall On The Convention of States Discussion appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.



Read the full article at krisannehall.com July 25, 2018 at 01:53PM

Daily Journal: Federal Subsidies And The Constitution


There are three very important historical events every American must know to have a Constitutional stand on subsidies. Today I will give you those events so you can come to your own conclusions. Plus an article from ThinkProgress (smile) James Madison and James Polk on Federal Subsidies: http://bit.ly/FoundersSubsidies  

The post Daily Journal: Federal Subsidies And The Constitution appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.



Read the full article at krisannehall.com July 24, 2018 at 04:17PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Podcast: Conceal Carry Reciprocity and the Constitution


From Tenth Amendment Center
...from Tenth Amendment Center

A lot of people are pushing for Congress to mandate conceal carry reciprocity. It may sound like a great idea, but there are some serious constitutional issues. In this episode of Thoughts from Maharrey Head, I focus specifically on the idea that the “full faith and credit” clause authorizes Congress to pass such a law.

LISTEN

You can subscribe to Thoughts from Maharrey Head for free on iTunes. Just click HERE. You can also listen on my YouTube channel HERE.

SHOW NOTES AND LINKS

Free E-Book: The Power of No!: The Historical and Constitutional Basis for State Nullification

The Bill of Rights

Was the Bill of Rights Meant to Apply to the States?

The Incorporation Doctrine and the Bill of Rights

Raoul Berger: Government by Judiciary

Episode 75: “States’ Rights” and Liberty

Episode 41: The Incorporation Doctrine and the 14th Amendment

Episode 40: The Liberty Enforcement Squad

“The power of prescribing by general laws, the manner in which the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of each State shall be proved, and the effect they shall have in other States, is an evident and valuable improvement on the clause relating to this subject in the articles of Confederation. The meaning of the latter is extremely indeterminate, and can be of little importance under any interpretation which it will bear. The power here established may be rendered a very convenient instrument of justice, and be particularly beneficial on the borders of contiguous States, where the effects liable to justice may be suddenly and secretly translated, in any stage of the process, within a foreign jurisdiction.” – James Madison, Federalist #42


Mike Maharrey
July 24, 2018 at 08:09AM