Our Banner

Mail address:

Cynthia Lucas #1 Mandalay Rd, Stuart, FL 34996 - We could use some help with expenses.

Newsletters

Martin 9/12 Calendar (& City of Stuart)

Showing posts with label nullification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nullification. Show all posts

Monday, March 29, 2021

Webinar #7 - Nullification - with Alex Newman

Webinar #7 - Nullification - with Alex Newman



The Activist's Handbook: https://americanpolicy.org/handbook​ This is APC's 7th Local Activist training webinar. Our subject is Nullification. State legislatures have more power than even many of the legislators know. We don't have to be oppressed by an out-of-control, tyrannical federal government. The nation's founders made it clear. If a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional, then it is null and void. Period. The question is, how do we assure bad laws are nullified? Too many people fear that all of our efforts to push back government overreach can't be done because of an all-powerful federal government. The fact is, our Republic is intact, IF we stand up and take action. My guest for this important webinar is Alex Newman, Senior Editor of the New American magazine. Join us as we discuss this vital tool to preserve the Republic Tom DeWeese, President American Policy Center

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Tennessee Bill Would Allow Customers to Opt Out of Smart Meters, Undermine Federal Program

Tennessee Bill Would Allow Customers to Opt Out of Smart Meters, Undermine Federal Program

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Jan. 23, 2018) – A bill introduced in the Tennessee Senate would allow customers to opt out of installing “smart meter” technology on their homes and businesses without penalty. Passage of this bill would enable Tennesseans to protect their own privacy, and it would take a step toward blocking a federal program in effect.
Sen. Mark Green (R-Clarksville) introduced Senate Bill 1679 (SB1679) on Jan. 18. The legislation would ensure utility customers can easily opt-out of smart meter programs.
Smart meters monitor home energy usage in minute detail in real time. The devices transmit data to the utility company where it gets stored in databases. Anybody with access to the data can download it for analysts. Without specific criteria limiting access to the data, these devices create significant privacy issues. Smart meters can also be used to remotely limit power usage during peak hours.
SB1679 would prohibit utilities from installing a smart meter on a home or business without the customer’s written and signed consent. It would also prohibit utilities from punishing customers who refuse to install smart meters by discontinuing service or charging a fee. Under the proposed law, utilities could not charge a customer for removing an existing smart meter.
Privacy Concerns
The proliferation of smart meters creates significant privacy concerns. The data collected can tell anybody who holds it a great deal about what goes on inside a home. It can reveal when residents are at home, asleep or on vacation. It can also pinpoint “unusual” energy use, and could someday serve to help enforce “energy usage” regulations. The ACLU summarized the privacy issues surrounding smart meters in a recent report.
“The temptation to use the information that will be collected from customers for something other than managing electrical loads will be strong – as it has been for cell phone tracking data and GPS information. Police may want to know your general comings and goings or whether you’re growing marijuana in your basement under grow lights. Advertisers will want the information to sell you a new washing machine to replace the energy hog you got as a wedding present 20 years ago. Information flowing in a smart grid will become more and more ‘granular’ as the system develops.”
The privacy issues aren’t merely theoretical. According to information obtained by the California ACLU, utility companies in the state have disclosed information gathered by smart meters on thousands of customers. San Diego Gas and Electric alone disclosed data on more than 4,000 customers. The vast majority of disclosures were in response to subpoenas by government agencies “often in drug enforcement cases or efforts to find specific individuals,” according to SFGate.
“Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network watchdog group, said the sheer number of data disclosures made by SDG&E raised the possibility that government agencies wanted to sift through large amounts of data looking for patterns, rather than conducting targeted investigations.”
No Smart Meter, No Data
Refusing to allow a smart meter on your property is the only sure-fire way to ensure your energy use data won’t fall into the hands of government agents or private marketers, or end up stored in some kind of government database. Passage of SB1679 would make opting out a legal option for Tennesseans and give them control over their own privacy.
Impact on Federal Program
The federal government serves as a major source of funding for smart meters. A 2009 program through the U.S. Department of Energy distributed $4.5 billion for smart grid technology. The initial projects were expected to fund the installation of 1.8 million smart meters over three years.
The federal government lacks any constitutional authority to fund smart grid technology. The easiest way to nullify such programs is to simply not participate. SB1679 would make that possible. If enough states pass similar legislation, and enough people opt out, the program will go nowhere.
We’ve seen a similar opt-out movement undermining Common Core in New York. Opting out follows a strategy James Madison advised in Federalist #46. “Refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides a powerful means to fight back against government overreach. Such actions in multiple states would likely be effective in bringing down federal smart meter programs.
WHAT’S NEXT
SB1679 had not been referred to a committee at the time of this report. Once it receives a committee assignment, it will need to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.


Mike Maharrey

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center.He proudly resides
in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky.See his blog archive here and his article archive here.He is the
author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE

Monday, July 10, 2017

How States Can Help Bring Down Obamacare


  LINK

How States Can Help Bring Down Obamacare

States can and should help end Obamacare whether Congress does its job, or not.
Will Republicans in Congress actually send Pres. Trump a bill to repeal Obamacare?
At this point, it seems highly unlikely. The changes to the ACA proposed by the U.S. House and Senate keep the basic the framework of Obamacare in place. It’s not even repeal and replace. It’s more like tinker around the edges and keep it in place. So far, the Republican-controlled Congress hasn’t shown any signs of being able to get even these modest “reforms” passed.
In light of Congress’ apparent ineptitude, it’s important to note states can take action right now that will set the stage to bring the Affordable Care Act down, no matter what Congress does.
How?
By refusing to provide any state or local cooperation with the implementation or administration of Obamacare – or whatever version of national healthcare Republicans create.
The ACA was predicated on state cooperation. Any Republican “replacement” will be as well. By ending all state actions that support the ACA and refusing to enforce any of its mandates, a state can make it nearly impossible to run Obamacare within its borders.
The federal government never intended to run the healthcare system alone, and ultimately, it can’t do it without state help. It even tried to compel states to expand Medicaid under the act, but that portion was struck down in the famous “Obamacare case,” NFIB v. Sebelius.
Additionally, we’ve seen the difficulties created for the Act by the number of states that simply refused to set up exchanges for the federal government. 
PRACTICAL STEPS
Refusing to expand Medicaid or set up an exchange are two essential steps states should take. West Virginia took the first step in the last legislative session, scrapping its state-run insurance exchange.This will force the feds to run the exchange themselves, and will just increase the strain and burden on federal resources.
But states can go even further. Judge Andrew Napolitano noted that if a number of states were to refuse to participate with the ACA in a wholesale fashion, that multi-state action would “gut Obamacare.”
Napolitano said that if enough states follow suit, “it will gut ObamaCare because the federal government does not have the resources or the wherewithal […] to go into each of the individual states.”
States can pass legislation to completely end any and all state participation in the Affordable Care Act (or any other national healthcare scheme). Here is an example of some simple model language that would effectively shut down all management and implementation of the ACA in a state.
That the general statutes be amended to repeal all statutes implementing health care mandates required under the Affordable Care Act, prohibit the state from participating in any program under or appropriating or expending any moneys in furtherance of said act, and dissolve all programs related to said act.
“The federal government can barely manage running a website,” Tenth Amendment Center Executive Director Michael Boldin said, noting that this kind of legislation would ban a state’s department of Insurance from investigating or enforcing violations of federally mandated health insurance requirements. He said this would “prove particularly problematic for the federal government.”
Insurance commissioners serve as the enforcement arm for insurance regulation in the states. The federal government has no enforcement arm. The feds assumed the state insurance commissioners would enforce all of the provisions of the ACA.
So, when people have issues with their mandated coverage, they would have to call the feds. At this point, it remains unclear who they would even call should the state be prohibited from carrying out this essential task. Issues the state insurance department would not address include prohibiting a denial of insurance for preexisting conditions, requiring dependent coverage for children up to age 26, and proscribing lifetime or yearly dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits.
LEGAL BASIS
This strategy rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.
“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.”
FOLLOW THE LEAD
In a very real sense, this kind of state action would set the stage to effectively repeal the Affordable Care Act within that state. It will also place more pressure on Congress to completely repeal the healthcare act. And in the event of a partial repeal, state action could finish the job.
Conservatives have vigorously opposed Obamacare from the beginning. With the way things have unfolded in Congress, many seem to have just given up in despair. Or worse, embraced horrible Republican alternatives. But options remain. Quit relying on D.C. to fix a problem that was caused by D.C. Focus on your state legislatures.
“Alabama, Tennessee, Utah, Alaska, Oklahoma, Indiana, Kentucky – these are just a few of the many so-called ‘conservative states,’” Boldin said. “Bills to withdraw support from Obamacare should be introduced and passed in every state possible, as soon as possible.”
Some may find it tempting to wait and see what Congress does, but why delay when you can take effective action now? Congress may or may not do anything. If enough states take action, it won’t even matter.
TAKE ACTION
Contact your own state rep and senator, and urge them to introduce legislation to end state cooperation with federal healthcare.  Find your state legislator’s contact info at this link

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Why Breitbart is Wrong About Refugees

Why Breitbart is Wrong About Refugees

Liberty First by KrisAnne Hall



America is suffering from a disease called federal supremacy. It obviously is not limited by political party or ideology. It is why we must support Liberty over security, Principle over party, and Truth over our favorite personality...and media.

Friday, October 31, 2014

Democrats and Republicans Alike Get the Supremacy Clause Wrong

tenthamendmentby Matthew Sickmeier

When the issue of federal power over states’ rights come into the forefront, Democrats are quick to cite the supremacy clause as beyond debate.  Yet, Republicans often use the same talking points.  When GOP policies need that extra “federal muscle,” Republicans imitate their political opponents and claim federal law as supreme without question.

Case in point, Rep.Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) are making the case that a legalization initiativeover marijuana in D.C would be trumped by Federal power if passed by voters. 

“I’m kind of naive, I guess. I thought federal law trumped state and local law. I thought that’s why we had a supremacy clause,” Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, told The Hill on Friday.

While Congress has special jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the problem is the general statement from Gowdy that federal law, by its existence, simply trumps all state and local law.

These defenders look to the supremacy clause as their four aces, but omit the text  itself.  “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land…” (emphasis added)

Simply put, laws are only supreme if such power is delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution.  Anything not expressly delegated is left to the States and the people thereof vis–à–vis the 10th Amendment.  As Hamilton wrote in Federalist #33 “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”

If a federal law is “not in pursuance” of the Constitution, it’s therefore null and void.  Game, set, match …how’s that for four aces?


Matthew Sickmeier

Matthew Sickmeier is a Tenth Amendment volunteer blogger.He writes and contributes from Georgia.

Technorati Tags:

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

The Declaration of Independence

July 4, 1776

The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection

between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Spalding, Heritage: Wrong on Nullification. Again. #tcot

Spalding, Heritage: Wrong on Nullification. Again.

by  on August 4, 2013 in FeaturedNullificationtac
When nullification opponents need some conservative cred to back up their arguments, they turn to the Heritage Foundation.
And when Heritage needs to smack down nullification, it turns to its big gun – Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., Vice President, American Studies and Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics.
But despite the impressive sounding title, Spalding doesn’t know squat about nullification, as he’s demonstrated time and again in his confused but emphatic dissertations on the subject.
It remains unclear how a guy working for an organization that brought you the individual mandate and  defends indefinite detention under the NDAA has any credibility on constitutional issues. Nevertheless, Tal Kopan turned to Spalding for the conservative take on nullification in her Politico piece titled States Seek to Nullify Obama Efforts.
And once again, Spalding delivered an incoherent attack on nullification, essentially saying he was against it, while touting it as a legitimate response to federal overreach.
There are a rising number of people who are frustrated with what Washington is doing, which is a perfectly legitimate and, in my opinion, correct view of ‘how do we push back?’” he told POLITICO. “Unfortunately, there’s a minority in that group that thinks nullification is the answer, by which they mean good old-fashioned, South Carolina, John C. Calhoun nullification. That’s deeply mistaken and unfortunate.
If there was any serious national movement advancing a “good old-fashioned, South Carolina, John C. Calhoun” type of nullification, I would have to agree with Spalding. I would consider it deeply mistaken and unfortunate. But nobody I’ve ever met in today’s nullification movement advocates for Calhoun’s version of nullification.
Nobody.
That’s because Calhoun was dead wrong.
It seems Spalding likes to pull Calhoun’s name out of his hat because James Madison vocally opposed the South Carolina Senator during the so-called Nullification Crisis in the 1830s. Spalding can conflate “Calhoun nullification” with the general principles of nullification and pretend the third president didn’t actually believe in them to buoy his case. He trotted out this line of thinking back in 2011.
Nullification is the argument that individual states have a constitutional authority to void federal laws.  John C. Calhoun made this claim back in 1832 and James Madison vehemently opposed it during the Nullification Crisis leading up to the Civil War.
But Madison made it clear in his Notes on Nullification that he wasn’t opposing nullification as it’s being used today, but specifically, Calhoun’s bastardized version of the doctrine.
But it follows, from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S. can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State [emphasis added]
Madison continued
Subscribe