It Is Not About Political Parties. It Is About Liberty by Michael Boldin
(2010-03-08 at 21:48:30 )

It Is Not About Political Parties. It Is About Liberty by Michael Boldin

The following is based on a speech at the first annual Tenth Amendment
Summit in Atlanta, GA on February 26, 2010.

How can a Crazy Californian and a Conservative Georgian be friends? It is
simple - through the principles of 98. In 1798, the John Adams
administration signed into law that Alien and Sedition Acts, which made
it a crime to publish -False, Scandalous, and Malicious Writing- against
the government or its officials. In practice, it was used to Quell the
freedom of speech in dissent against the sitting administration.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson responded:

The several States composing the United States of America, are not united
on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government!

But wait - that is not all. He went on to say that all undelegated powers
exercised by the federal government are -Unathoritative, void and of no
force.- And, that a Nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.

NULLIFICATION?

There has been plenty of people talking about nullification lately, but
many people do not know what it really means. I can think of no better
way to define it than how my friend Derek Sheriff from the Arizona Tenth
Amendment Center has done:

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it
unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something
that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the
federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a
favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the
federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything.
Nullification does not depend on any federal law being repealed.
Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution
outside of ones own state.

Nullification is something that is already happening around the country -
and Derek explains the process:

Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to
resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a
bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In
some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in
a referendum. It may change your states statutory law or it might even
amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state
government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be
uUnconstitutional.

At its very core, nullification is mass civil-disobedience to the federal
government with the support of the state apparatus. It is about -We The
People- exercising our rights whether the politicians or judges in
Washington D.C. want to give us Permission to exercise those rights or
not.

ROSCOE FILBURN

During the Great Depression, while millions of people were out of work or
starving, the FDR administration required American farmers to restrict
production of wheat in order to raise prices.

As a farmer, Roscoe Filburn was told he could plant a little over 10
acres of wheat, which he did grow and sell on the market. He also decided
that it was in his best interest - possibly because he had less revenue
due to the production limitations - to plant another 10 or so acres. But,
the Excess wheat grown was used at home to feed his livestock, among
other things. He never sold it, so he saw this as being outside the scope
of Congressional power to regulate Interstate Commerce.

What did the federal government do? The expected - they ordered Roscoe to
destroy his crops and pay a fine. Think about that for a moment and you
will really understand the evil of having too much power in too few hands.
At a time when large numbers of people were starving, these thugs in
government forced people to reduce production for the sake of raising
prices. From this, it seems clear to me that Corporate Bailouts have been
going on a long, long time in America.

Roscoe sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In
Wickard v Filburn, the Court ruled against him and the result was that
the Federal Government assumed a power that was new in the history of
this country. It now had the power to control the growing and consuming
of something that never left ones own back yard.

LOST LIBERTY

John Adams, who as we can see from his signing of the Alien and Sedition
Acts, was no saint, did give us a great warning on the growth of
government power. In 1775 he wrote, -Liberty once lost, is lost forever.
He went on to explain that when the People allow government to gain power
and restrict Liberty, it will never voluntarily give that power back.
Liberty given up to government power will never be returned to the people
without a long and difficult struggle.

If we fast-forward to present times, we can see this principle at work.

ANGEL RAICH

In the 1990s, the People of California voted to legalize consumption of
marijuana for medicinal purposes. Angel Raich, who has a huge cancerous
tumor in her brain was told by her doctor and California law that using
marijuana to relieve some of the pain associated with her cancer was
acceptable.

The Feds do not take too kindly to states passing laws in direct
contravention to theirs. Marijuana, for example, is illegal on a federal
level in all circumstances, and federal agencies have consistently said
they do not recognize state laws. You can probably guess what happened,
right?

Federal agents destroyed Angels homegrown marijuana plants without much
resistance. Like Roscoe before her, Angel sued, and the case went all the
way to the Supreme Court. In 2005, the Supreme Court once again ruled
that growing and consuming a plant in ones own back yard qualified as
Interstate Commerce. And, because of that, the federal government was
then authorized to control, regulate, or outright ban such activities
under the threat of fine or prison.

Clarence Thomas, in his famous dissent, got it right when he wrote, -If
the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now
regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout
the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madisons assurance to the people
of New York that the -Powers Delegated- to the Federal Government are
Few and Defined, while those of the States are Numerous and Indefinite.

PARTISAN CONSTITUTIONALISTS?

The main problem we face is that much of the support for the 10th
Amendment is little more than partisanship. For many years, conservatives
have rightly railed against policies such as the ones that FDR used
against Roscoe Filburn. But, at the same time, they have turned a blind
eye to those same policies when used against Angel Raich and her use of
marijuana. And on the other hand, liberals have done just the opposite.

The bottom line, though, is this. When you allow politicians to bend the
rules of the Constitution - even for things you may support - over a long
period of time, sooner or later you are going to end up with politicians
who feel that the rules do not apply at all. And, if we are not there
right now, we are pretty darn close.

EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME

That is why we at the Tenth Amendment Center demand adherence to the
Constitution - Every Issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses. That
means that much of what the federal government does is unconstitutional,
including:

The Department of Education, The Patriot Act, Federal Gun Laws and
Regulations, National Health Care Mandates, and something that has been
going on since 1941, wars without a Congressional declaration of war
from Congress.

LIBERTY

From this we can see that the Tenth Amendment is not about political
parties. It is not about political ideologies. It is not even about
political candidates. It Is About Liberty. It was designed to promote
your liberty by strictly limiting the powers of the federal government.

Over the past year or so, I have been interviewed by mainstream media
sources literally dozens of times. And whether it is Fox News, or CNN, or
the New York Times, the reporters invariably ask the same question, -What
political party do you support? Each time, I give them the same answer,
The Tenth Amendment Center is a non-partisan think tank that supports the
Principles of Strictly Limited Constitutional Government.

They always have virtually the same follow up question too - What about
you? As the founder of the Center, what is your political background,
what political party do you support?

None, I tell them. I do not know if they believe me, but it is true.

I am no Conservative, and I am no Liberal. I am not a Democrat or a
Republican. And I am not a Green or a Libertarian, or a Socialist or an
Anarchist. I am not even an Independent.

All I Am Is Me, And All I Want Is To Live Free.

Thank You!!

This is reprinted from the Tenth Amendment Center.

March 3, 2010

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Copyright © 2010 Tenth Amendment Center. Permission to reprint in whole
or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.