Bio not provided
BREAKING NEWS: Kansas state rep to introduce 4th Amendment Protection Act and push-back against critical areas of NSA spying.via Nullify NSAREAD IT:►► http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/11/4th-amendment-protection-act-to-be-introduced-in-kansas/
11 months, 1 week ago on Access denied | Foreign Policy
Mises: When it comes to Supreme Court cases, what do you think were some of the most damaging to the cause of liberty?
"Without sounding cynical, my answer is: Almost all of them. Here is a short list of the most constitutionally offensive cases: Marbury v. Madison, which establishes the federal government as the final judge of its own power; McCullough v. Maryland, which establishes the primacy of the federal government over the states and establishes the concept of implied federal power; Dred Scott v. Sanford, which establishes the principle that a class of human beings can be defined as non-persons because of an immutable characteristic of birth; Wickard v. Filburn, which permits the Congress to regulate personal, private, and even trivial behavior; Korematsu v. United States, which permits the attribution of guilt and the infliction of punishment based on an immutable characteristic of birth; Roe v. Wade, which permits murder based on the age of the victim; andNational Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which permits the Congress to tax any event or non-event it wishes."--Andrew Napolitano
1 year, 1 month ago on <span class="dojodigital_toggle_title">Florida Second Amendment Preservation Act</span>
@LloydThomasSloan TAC has covered the fallacy of nullification as a tool by "slave apologists" for over two years now. Tom Woods has addressed this as well. TAC's own Mike Maharrey and written and spoken extensively on this. I would offer for your consideration Mr. Maharrey's "Moral High Ground" explanation on nullification at http://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/07/tenther-radio-episode-57-mike-maharrey-the-moral-high-ground/. This site contains numerous other refutations of your observation. As for "dead end failed methods,"nullification is at work against REAL ID in more than twenty states, in practice with medical marijuana in at least 16 states and as of Tuesday, recreational use approval in Colorado and Washington has nullified federal marijuana law. There is also a state non compliance bill in Virginia against the indefinite detention section of the NDAA. This is not a dead end method by any measure. It is alive, well and remains the rightful remedy.
1 year, 11 months ago on No More Waiting. Nullify Now!
@RedTulie @Michael Boldin States are different in the wording. Hawaii uses the federal wording. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1921#stateconst
2 years, 1 month ago on Dangerous Dicta
@Michael Boldin Didn't catch that anywhere. Now, not arguing for gun control of any kind. We should all be armed as well at the least as our rapidly federalized local LEO. However, if the Bill of Rights is a constraint of the federal government as postulated in Gunning Down the Constitution (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/05/gunning-down-the-constitution/) then States and locales theoretically have the power to regulate firearms ownership.
Agreed, the federal government has no authority in this matter. None. Self defense being a natural right, no government should be able to legislate such ownership and the matter should never even be taken up in a federal court. Mr. Vance is also the author of an excellent piece The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/12/the-14th-amendment-and-the-bill-of-rights/) detailing the mistaken "incorporation theory" regarding the States and the Bill of Rights. In the above article the statement is made:"The Court then reaffirmed this opinion in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), and further ruled that the Second Amendment also applies to the states" leading me to believe based on the prior article that the author does not believe the Second Amendment does apply to the States. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights would seem to make it clear they were not intended to be "incorporated." Had it been so, would not religious disestablishment been required to end immediately upon ratification? It lasted into the 1800's. The States at the time of ratification would certainly not disarm their people/militia,and would certainly not agree to empower a central government to do so, but if this amendment holds against the States, then what amendments do ,do/ not and why?
Ah, but what of the power of the several states to institute arms control Laurence?
To Governor Brewer, and all Governors who may want to find cover in a conflicting allegiance position. We are by design a dual sovereignty Republic. I would submit to such a stance, on the surface so righteous, but upon examination, most hollow-these sentiments from Connecticut's Oliver Ellsworth: “The U.S. are sovereign on their side of the line dividing jurisdictions---the States on the other---each ought to have the power to defend their respective jurisdictions” I would also offer as further example that Governor Brewer's reasoning is flawed and is certainly not uncharted territory, another response from Connecticut, this time it's legislature explaining why it refused its Militia for service in The War of 1812- "But it must not be forgotten, that the State of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT State; that the United States are a confederacy of States; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic. The Governor of this State is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent State," as he is "to support the Constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter imposes an additional obligation to support the former. The building cannot stand, if the pillars upon which it rests, are impaired or destroyed." A Governor cannot claim allegiance to a republic of our design without allegiance first to his own state, the very creator of the general government.
2 years, 5 months ago on Jan Brewer: Extremely Disappointing – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Perfectly put into words what so many have come to know in their hearts but couldn enunciate. Well done Mr. Maharrey.
2 years, 6 months ago on One Nation, Indivisible?
As Bradford noted, if the federal government is to be the sole arbiter of its own power then there really are no limits to that power, and those who still believe in the Founders™ constitution should not cheer its destruction by championing increased centralization over local control, federal dictates over statesâ€™ rights and œconservative victories that are not.- Jack Hunter, "Gunning Down the Constitution" http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/05/gunning-down-the-constitution/
2 years, 10 months ago on Where 2nd Amendment Advocates Go Unconstitutional