Posts Tagged ‘Tenth Amendment’
Kansas’ new law to nullify federal gun controls faces challenges, asks for original interpretation of Constitution & Bill of Rights
Some important parts of the Kansas law are as follows:
(a) The tenth amendment to the constitution of the United States guarantees to the
states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Kansas certain powers as they wereunderstood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.
(b) The ninth amendment to the constitution of the United States guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Kansas certain rights as they were understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States wasagreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861. (c) The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861. . . .
From The Hill newspaper:
The Obama administration is on a collision course with the state of Kansas over a new law that claims to nullify federal gun controls.
Attorney General Eric Holder has threatened litigation against Kansas over the law in what could the opening salvo of a blockbuster legal battle with national ramifications.
“This is definitely a case that could make it to the Supreme Court,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said Friday afternoon. “There is nothing symbolic about this law.”
Kobach, a former constitutional law professor, helped craft the statute, which bars the federal government from regulating guns and ammunition manufactured and stored within Kansas state lines. . . .
There is a later discussion in The Hill newspaper piece that quotes Mr.
The April 2009 nine-page DHS report was titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” It defined extremism “as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.”
Many, if not most, Americans are unaware that the nation is composed of separate republics with their own constitutions. They are, of course, the individual states.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved respectively, or to the people.” – Tenth Amendment
By tying compliance with federal laws and regulation to receiving funds, the states have been coerced to accept programs that limit freedoms enumerated in the Constitution and the passage of Obamacare is but one example. Some twenty states have refused to set up the mandated insurance exchanges. Obamacare grants the government complete control over the provision of medical care that every American has formerly received from the free market health system that it destroyed. It gives the federal government control over our lives in terms of who lives or dies.
As noted on the website of the Tenth Amendment Center: “The Founding Fathers has good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment.”
“The issue of power – and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments – was extremely important to the America’s founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies.”
“Adoption of the Constitution of 1787 was opposed by a number of well-known patriots including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others. They passionately argued that the Constitution would eventually lead to a strong, centralized state power which would destroy the individual liberty of the People. Many in this movement were given the poorly-named tag ‘Anti-Federalists.’”
“The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies.”
Their worst fears are coming true as the nation heads into 2013. In just four years, the Obama administration, through its profligate borrowing and spending, has brought the nation to the brink of financial collapse and, as we have seen, the refusal of the President to negotiate anything than the current Band-Aid to avoid the “fiscal cliff” for another two months, has brought the nation to a point where the collapse of the U.S. dollar is not just imminent, but likely.
When that occurs the individual states may elect to secede in order to avoid having the federal government nationalize their National Guard units or take control of their state police to enforce whatever measures it might take to control the population. Individual state law enforcement authorities in cities and towns would need similar protection. Reportedly, massive amounts of funding have been directed to them to ensure their cooperation.
It would be a means to protect their citizens insofar as state constitutions grant the same rights as found in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It would not surprise me to see Texas lead the way. Others would follow.
It appears that We-the-People, the US Constitution and the USA are now sunk. CJ Roberts has now shown his true stripes as a leftist. In order to do away with the true argument that the Congressional ruling establishing ObamaCare would be charged as a fee for being born and living in the USA, Roberts changed ObamaCare to a tax — which Obama had argued previously and intensely stated was NOT a tax — in order to mollify and please his true leader.
However, during the oral arguments, Obama’s lawyers ruled it IS a tax. In what I view as an act of brazen disregard for the US Constitution, Roberts sided with the Marxists on the US Supreme Court in ruling that Americans can be controlled by the (now) totalitarian government and be forced to pay it for simply being born.
We are in trouble as never before, folks, and I suspect that many more (who are able) will renounce their citizenship and leave this once-blessed country. Under now-openly totalitarian CJ Roberts, SCOTUS has now joined the Executive and Legislative branches. Apparently, this is what he planned all along. With Roberts assistance, the enslavement of the American people appears to now be complete.
What to do? Only one thing I know. The US States need to form a large and broad coalition in order to fight against the Obama syndicate’s wholly-owned federal government. Obama is already nullifying the Tenth Amendment — as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights. The States need to fight this as a large combined group. This will be our last hope for survival. If we don’t…we finished and the end will be oppression worse than Josef Stalin’s USSR and Hitler’s Germany.
“And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?” — Revelation 13:4
© Sher Zieve
The tension between the states and the federal government is built into the U.S. Constitution and the Tenth Amendment stipulates that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
The Constitution was written in an era of monarchies by men who were determined to preserve the rights of individual citizens and of the sovereign republics, the states, who were coming together for their common protection and welfare without ceding any powers to the federal government that would deprive them of the governance of their states.
The Founding Fathers were well aware that it is the nature of all governments to seek to accrue more and more power at the expense of citizens and states or provinces within their borders. The rise of the so-called environmental movement has given ample proof that their concerns were well-grounded. I yearn for the day when we stop calling them “environmentalists” and simply the communists that they are.
The latest in the long war between a rapacious federal government, filled with departments and agencies seeking to control every square inch of the nation’s land mass has been an audacious power grab by the Environmental Protection Agency in league with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. There are specific steps any agency must take before it can assert federal control of any kind.
Using the original Clean Water Act which permits the EPA to only regulate “navigable waters”, i.e., rivers and lakes, this rogue agency and the Corps is seeking to ignore the restriction and assert control over every body of water in the U.S. including a puddle of rain water or a pond in your backyard. If it weren’t so absurd and so outrageous, it would sound like science fiction, but the science the EPA uses is usually invented out of thin air.
Specifically, the EPA has issued “a guidance document” saying they want to eliminate or just ignore the word “navigable” so they could control “all waters of the United States and all activities affecting all waters of the United States.”
Senator John Barasso (R-WY) has introduced the “Preserve The Waters of the US Act” (S-2245) to ensure that the EPA and Corps are held in check and required to obey the Clean Waters Act’s previsions and intent.
In March the co-chairs of the National Conference of State Legislatures wrote Sen. Barasso, noting its opposition to the way the EPA and Corps are trying to circumvent “the formal rulemaking process, inclusive of a federalism consultation process with state and local governments” noting that their unilateral declaration of expanded powers “would effectively preempt existing state authority and are too significant to be addressed in a guidance document.”
The Land Rights Network of the American Land Rights Association is calling on Americans to write, call, email and fax their senators to support S-2245. The reason is simple and at the same time chilling. Unless S-2245 is enacted, the EPA and Corps would have unprecedented powers to seize the water or land from families, farmers, small businesses and all others, devastating economic and recreational activity, as well as many small communities throughout the nation that depend on such waters.
It is the nature of any government to seek to expand its authority. The Founding Fathers knew this and gifted Americans with a Constitution that limits authority devolving it to the states and to “the people.” Read the Tenth Amendment. It isn’t working.
The freedoms they sought to establish and preserve for future generations are being eaten away and we tend only to hear about in individual cases when, in fact, it is so widespread we accept the injustices, the inefficiencies, and the enslavement in increments.
After 9/11 it was clear that some reorganization was needed to ensure that various enforcement and other agencies could communicate and coordinate more effectively in order to wage “a war on terror.” The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created. The sheer size of it should have been a warning.
One of its siblings was the Transportation Security Administration that currently makes taking a flight anywhere a nightmare of intrusive groping and, because one failed bomber used explosive in his shoes, everyone now must remove theirs to get on a flight.
Fifty-seven years ago, the State of New Jersey issued me my first driver’s license. For years all one needed to do was renew by mail, but after 9/11, it was decided that every license had to include a photo. A very high tech license resulted, but it also means that, if you live in New Jersey, every four years you are going to spend a minimum of two hours in your nearest motor vehicle agency standing in line and sitting around for your number to be called in order to renew.
You need bring several documents with you such as a passport, birth certificate, and Medicare card. Just one won’t do. Even though I already have a license with a photo (it was on record at the agency so there was no need for a new photo), I still had to personally prove I am who I am to receive a renewed license. In an age of computerized records of birth and residence, the whole process struck me as overkill.
After December 1, 2012, New Jersey will join eight other States to issue a driver’s license with a gold star in the upper right corner. Without it, I will not be allowed to board a domestic flight or visit a federal building. Do I feel any more secure? Not really. In fact, what I really feel is the tightening grip of the federal and state government on my freedom to drive my car, get on an airplane, or legitimately enter a building in which the work of the federal government is being conducted. This is less about security and far more about authoritarian control.
I tell you this because I doubt you are aware that the Department of Homeland Security has added a whole new layer of authority to its portfolio. You thought it was about protecting the nation against acts of terrorism. Now it is about enforcing “environmental justice.”
The DHS has added Green Police to its concerns and, if you think this has nothing whatever to do with some jihadists trying to kill a lot of people as was the case on 9/11, you would be right.
Since publishing my previous article, Ron Paul: Radical, Rogue & Wrong! I received an avalanche of vitriolic comments, many of which were too vile to publish, from none other than Ron Paul supporters.
By all accounts, Ron Paul is the apostate of the GOP field. His radical views on foreign policy, including the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, coupled with his desire to revert back to the antiquated “gold standard” for the dollar, and his zealous promotion of the Tenth Amendment have made him a rock star amongst America’s nihilistic insurgents. But is it Ron Paul’s “Constitutional” principles that resonate with his militant supporters or does this new breed of American anarchists see Paul as the straw man for their more sinister ideology?
In writing my follow up piece, I came across Daniel Greenfield’s recent article, The Paul Pot and the Paulestinians, on his blog, Sultan Knish, that captures the essence of Ron Paul’s appeal and the profile of his more militant supporters in brilliant journalistic fashion . . .
The masses weeping over the death of Kim Jong Il and the frantic online defenders of Ron Paul have something in common, it isn’t the man they care about. It’s what he represents.
The course of events that took a cranky Texas congressman and turned him into the made man of a motley crew of online gambling entrepreneurs, racists, conspiracy theorists and the whole big circus tent filled with offshore accounts, UFO landing sites and copies of the Turner Diaries is an odd one, but not a completely unusual one.
Cults of personality are not about the man, but about the need that he fills in his followers. There is a point at which every dictator, rock star and celebrity realizes that it is the people who adore him that are in charge and all he can do is ride the wave of adulation. The men don’t matter, the reasons why people seize on them do matter.
Why Ron Paul? Because like so many at the center of a cult of personality, he is everything to everyone. The big tent he presides over is full of people who don’t agree on very much. They are a nexus of opposition to ‘everything’, but they’re also a collection of groups that splinter faster than old wood in a thunderstorm.
Ron Paul’s program which is big on ambitious assaults on the government, but short on the details, finesses many of those disagreements. Gay rights? Abortion? Immigration? If you squint and only pay attention to the right statements, then Ron Paul is for you. Like Santa’s little elves, his followers spread his selective word by focusing in on target demographics and barraging them with talking points that make it seem like Ron Paul is on their side. Whose side is Ron Paul on? Most likely his own.
The simplest reason why Ron Paul has become the perennial candidate of the Ringling Bros circus is a combination of two things. A past in which he marketed himself heavily to conspiracy theorists as a former member of Congress and a present in which he is a member of Congress.
The left has no shortage of Ron Pauls in Congress, cranks and loons like Shirley Jackson Lee and Pete Stark.
In a recent column appearing on InfoWars.com, Kurt Nimmo succinctly and correctly pointed out that the federal government’s usurpation of State sovereignty, jurisdiction, and authority is worsening. The current case in point is the recent open letter to all firearms dealers by the ATF. Nimmo begins, “In its continuing effort to pare down the number of Americans who can exercise their rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has sent a letter to firearms dealers informing them that medical patients ‘addicted’ to legally dispensed medical marijuana have no right to own and possess firearms.
“According to Arthur Herbert, Assistant Director of Enforcement Programs and Services at the ATF, ‘any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use of medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition’ and will be compelled to admit the prescribed use of medical marijuana on ATF forms at the point of purchase.”
Nimmo goes on to point out, “More significantly, the ATF’s move to deny cancer and other patients medical marijuana is part of a larger attempt to roll back the Second Amendment by color of law and also attack states’ rights as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.”
And it’s not just medical marijuana and cancer patients that the ATF–and its water boys in Congress–wants to deny Second Amendment rights to. As has been previously reported, many of our nation’s veterans are also on the “hit list” as not eligible to keep and bear arms.
See the report HERE
Beyond that, any person who has been diagnosed with a “mental disorder” is also in the cross hairs for having their Second Amendment rights expunged. And, of course, “mental disorder” could include anyone from a returning combat veteran who suffers from “post-traumatic stress disorder,” or “combat fatigue,” to someone who was prescribed medication for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) as a child, to someone who was diagnosed as suffering from bipolar disorder. In other words, the federal government wants the power to classify just about anyone it wants to as having a “mental disorder” and, therefore, be denied their right to keep and bear arms.
But there is even more. Nimmo writes, “In 2009, Democrat and notorious gun-grabber Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced The No Fly, No Buy Act (H.R. 2401), a bill that would have merged the TSA’s no-fly list with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to purchase a firearm.
“The current mayor of Chicago–the largest anti-Second Amendment city in the country after New York City–and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel proposed that anybody on the fed’s no-fly list (numbering in the tens of thousands) should have their Second Amendment stripped.”
Of course, if having one’s name on the no-fly list makes one a terrorist, why wasn’t former senator Ted Kennedy so identified? It is a matter of public record that he was detained several times by TSA agents, because his name kept showing up on the no-fly list.