Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 25, 2014, 07:00:17 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83029 Posts in 2258 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Tenth/10th Amendment: States Rights
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: Tenth/10th Amendment: States Rights  (Read 22756 times)
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #50 on: May 18, 2010, 06:57:08 AM »

States Rights-  This was without the baggage- but watch the opponents attach it anyway.  I am waiting for a Governor to refuse National Guard troops..........
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #51 on: May 18, 2010, 07:32:51 AM »

Should I have said Miss USA instead of Miss America?
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #52 on: May 21, 2010, 04:36:33 AM »

Sorry I tend to think of the 2 contests interchangeably..........
Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #53 on: June 02, 2010, 09:25:22 AM »

Forgotten Lessons from the Nullification Crisis

Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #54 on: June 05, 2010, 08:08:45 AM »

Good look at the minds of federalist founders at the ratification of constitution by Virgina


Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #55 on: June 28, 2010, 10:19:21 AM »

Your Ticket to Freedom


by Michael Boldin

Tom Woods’ new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, is not just another reading assignment on the evils and failures of the current administration (like so many political books have been in recent years and decades). Instead, it’s the centerpiece of a mass movement – a new strategy to deal with those evils and failures of federal administrations – past, present, and future.

Prominent founders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government were ever to become the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers, those powers would always grow, regardless of separations of power, protests, lawsuits, elections, or any other vaunted part of the American system.

Put another way, this would be like having your ex’s mother as the final judge on the structure of your divorce settlement. (Thanks to Andrew Nappi for this perspective)

But, sadly enough, this is just what Americans have been doing for a long, long time. When the federal government violates the Constitutional limits on its power (which it has been doing in big ways for nearly a century), we the people have been going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal government.

We the People march on D.C. to protest in the hope that federal politicians will change their minds and limit their own power. We the People go to federal courts with lawsuits in the hope that federal judges will limit the power of the federal government. We the People “vote the bums out” nearly every election cycle in the hope that new federal politicians will reject federal powers handed to them on a silver platter.

Seriously, folks, does this sound like an effective solution?

Clearly not, because no matter how many emails or calls we make, and no matter how many marches we hold in DC, federal power continues to grow. No matter how many lawsuits are filed, and no matter how many bums are voted out, federal power continues to grow – and it doesn’t matter what political party is in power, what black-robed deity is nominated to the Supreme Court, or what personality occupies the White House.

Woods makes the case that there actually is another option – one that the powers that be (and their government-run schools) don’t want you to know about. Nullification – the act of rendering unconstitutional laws null and void, or inoperative, on a state level – is, as Thomas Jefferson put it, the “rightful remedy” in response to acts of undelegated power by the federal government, and Woods lays it all out in brilliant fashion.

In Nullification, Woods not only goes through the historical and Constitutional case for nullification, but also many of the modern day applications of the principle. He shows us how this isn’t just a good idea, it’s already a movement – and it’s ready to hit the mainstream.

For example, in the past 2 years, multiple states have passed laws making national health care mandates illegal, eight others have passed laws nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations, and others are working to ban federal cap-and-trade regulations. And this is just the beginning. Dozens of states across the country are considering laws to ban a myriad of unconstitutional federal “laws” (which aren’t really laws at all) and people are starting to catch on that the states can stop D.C.!

Over the last 10+ years, 14 states have actively defied unconstitutional federal laws on marijuana. And, starting in 2007, more than 2 dozen states started passing laws and resolutions banning the Real ID act. Today, while that law still sits on the books and has never been challenged in court, it’s virtually null and void in most of the country. There haven’t been any tanks rolling into states like California to shut down marijuana dispensaries, and funding hasn’t been taken away from states like Missouri for refusing to comply with the Real ID Act. So whatever your point of view on these particular issues may be, there’s an important lesson to be learned…

Nullification works.

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century is not just another great book from a great author – it’s one for the generations and should become the guidebook for the future of liberty in this country.

In conjunction with the release of the book, the Tenth Amendment Center and WeRefuse.com have set up a multi-state speaking tour, NullifyNow. Tom Woods will be the keynote speaker at a number of locations and other top thinkers and activists will be on hand as well.

Already signed on to support this tour on a national level are prominent groups and organizations such as Campaign for Liberty, JBS.org, The New American and Young Americans for Liberty. The goal? To educate and activate people in support of this essential principle of nullification.

The bottom line is pretty straightforward – if we continue doing the same things we’ve been doing all along, we know what’s going to happen. The march to tyranny isn’t stopping. Woods’ Nullification gives us the blueprint, and NullifyNow brings us together to make it happen.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #56 on: June 28, 2010, 10:42:22 AM »

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/an-open-letter-from-the-vodkapundit/?singlepage=true

My Dear Fellow Conservatives and Libertarians:

We need to give up this notion of “states’ rights.” First of all, it’s in bad taste. The phrase used to be code for “Jim Crow.” And while I’m certain that’s not true for 99% of us, we can — and should — do better than to emulate vile racists. Secondly, however, “states’ rights” is a misnomer. It’s an impossible thing. It doesn’t exist, and shouldn’t.

Let me explain.

I remember reading once somewhere 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.

In other words, individuals have rights, and governments are instituted with powers to protect those rights, and are (or ought to be) restricted from abusing them.

With me so far? Individuals have rights; governments have powers.
Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #57 on: July 08, 2010, 07:48:17 AM »

There are links that did not come through.  Many are on the list of points made.  If you want more info go to the original link here: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/11/29/resist-dc-a-step-by-step-plan-for-freedom/

Resist DC: Step by Step Plan for Freedom

by State Rep. Matthew Shea (WA-4th)

This summer, legislators from several states met to discuss the steps needed to restore our Constitutional Republic. The federal government has ignored the many state sovereignty resolutions from 2009 notifying it to cease and desist its current and continued overreach. The group decided it was time to actively counter the tyranny emanating from Washington D.C.

From those discussions it became clear three things needed to happen.

State Legislatures need to pass 10 key pieces of legislation “with teeth” to put the federal government back in its place.
The people must pass the legislation through the Initiative process if any piece of the legislative agenda fails.
County Sheriffs must reaffirm and uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
With the advent of the Tea Party Movement, many people have been asking how exactly we can make the above reality. What follows is Part I of the outline of that plan regarding state legislation, the action steps any concerned citizen can take to see this legislation to fruition, and the brief history and justifications behind each.

Step 1:     Reclaim State Sovereignty through Key Nullification Legislation

Our Constitutional Republic is founded on a system of checks and balances known as the “separation of powers.” Rarely, however, are the states considered part of this essential principle.

Enter the “doctrine of nullification.”

Nullification is based on the simple principle that the federal government cannot be the final arbiter of the extent and boundaries of its own power. This includes all branches of the federal government. In the law this is known as a “conflict of interest.”

Additionally, since the states created the federal government the federal government was an agent of the states; not the other way around. Thus, Thomas Jefferson believed that, by extension, the states had a natural right to nullify (render as of no effect) any laws they believed were unconstitutional.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 he wrote,

“co-States, recurring to their natural right…will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.”1

Alexander Hamilton echoed this sentiment in Federalist #85 “We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” 2

It is clear then that State Legislatures can stop the unconstitutional overreach of the Obama administration through nullification. Here is a list of proposed nullification legislation to introduce in all 50 States.

Nullification of Socialized Health Care [current efforts] [example legislation]
Nullification of National Cap and Trade [example legislation]
Federal Enumerated Powers Requirement (Blanket Nullification) [details]
Establishment of a Federal Tax Escrow Account [example legislation]
If imposed, socialized health care and cap and trade will crush our economy. These programs are both unconstitutional, creating government powers beyond those enumerated by the Constitution. If those programs are nullified, it will give the individual states a fighting chance to detach from a federal budget in freefall and save the economies of the individual states.

Next, blanket nullification.

The Federal Government, particularly the House of Representatives, needs to abide by its own rules. In particular, House Rule XIII 3(d) specifically states that:

“Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or resolution.” 3

Needless to say, this rule is generally ignored. The idea behind blanket nullification is that if the Congress does not specify the enumerated power it is using according to its own rules, or the power specified is not one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the United States Constitution, then the “law” is automatically null and void.

Lastly, the federal government cannot survive without money. I know that seems obvious but many states are missing the opportunity to use money as an incentive for the federal government to return to its proper role. Most visibly, states help collect the federal portion of the gasoline tax. That money should be put into an escrow account at the state level and held there. The Escrow Account legislation includes a provision that all consumer, excise, and income taxes payable to the federal government would go through this account first. This would do two things. First, it would give states the ability to collect interest on that money to help offset revenue shortfalls. Second, it would allow states to hold that money as long as needed as an incentive for the federal government to return within the enumerated boundaries of its power.

Step 2:   Erect an impenetrable wall around the County Sheriff and the 2nd Amendment.

As recently stated in the famous Heller opinion by the United States Supreme Court, the right to bear arms “is an individual right protecting against both public and private violence” and “when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized they are better able to resist tyranny.” 4

Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment not only protects the right to self-defense but that right extends to defending oneself against tyranny. As with any historical attempt to establish a dictatorship weapons must be seized or severely regulated. 5

Here is a list of legislation to prevent this from happening, some of which has already been introduced in states around the country:

Sheriff First [model legislation]
Extension of the Castle Doctrine (right to protection) [sample legislation]
Prohibition of Gun and Ammunition Tracking [see above]
Firearms Freedom Act [current efforts] [model legislation]
The county Sheriff is the senior law enforcement officer both in terms of rank and legal authority in a county. This comes from a tradition of over 1000 years of Anglo-Saxon common law. Anglo-Saxon communities were typically organized into “shires” consisting of approximately 1000 people. 6

The chief law enforcement officer of the shire was the “reeve” or “reef.” Hence, the modern combination of the two words, as we know them today, “shire reef” or “Sheriff.” 7

Consequently, the Sheriff’s pre-eminent legal authority is well established. This was confirmed in Printz v. United States. 7    Justice Scalia quotes James Madison who wrote in Federalist 39:

“In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.”9

Sheriff 1st legislation would formally declare that all federal agents and officers must give notice of, and seek permission before, any arrest, search, or seizure occurs. Thus, federal agents and officers seeking to enforce unconstitutional laws must go through the county Sheriff first.

Extending the castle doctrine to one’s person would go a long way toward eliminating the arbitrary “no carry” areas. Like Virginia Tech, it is these areas where guns for self-defense are most needed.

Many gun and ammunition tracking schemes have been, and are still being, attempted. The intended purpose of “reducing gun related” crime is never realized. Instead, law-abiding citizens are punished with regulatory burdens and fees. Quite simply we need transparency in government not in the people.

Montana started the firearms freedom act to rein in the federal government’s use of the Commerce Clause to regulate everything within the stream of commerce. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate commerce between states not within states as Professor Rob Natelson points out in his 2007 Montana Law Review article.10

The Montana FFA simply returns to that original understanding regarding firearms made, sold, and kept within a state’s borders.

This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it does contain some immediate steps that can be taken toward freedom and restoring our God honoring Constitutional Republic. Hitler’s laws of January 30 and February 14, 1934, should serve as a stark reminder of what happens when state sovereignty is abolished.

In the coming few weeks I will publish the next part of the plan.

Matthew Shea [send him email] is a State Representative in Washington’s 4th District. He’s the author of HJM4009 for State Sovereignty.  Visit his website.

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 08:54:44 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #58 on: July 08, 2010, 07:48:54 AM »

part 2  There are links that did not come through.  Many are on the list of points made.  If you want more info go to the original link here: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/07/resist-dc-step-by-step-plan-for-freedom/



by State Rep. Matthew Shea (WA-4th)

I, like many people, believe that the Constitution is not a living document.  The corollary to this principle is that if it is not living then it cannot die. However, the question of whether the Constitution is followed and enforced depends on you and me.  We introduced the legislation outlined in Part I of the plan and predictably many Obama defenders in our state House began calling us racist and secessionist. In fact, the quote from our Speaker Pro Tem Jeff Morris (D – Mount Vernon) was “We want to lead the state out of recession. They want to lead the state out of the country.”  Obviously, this is absurd.  The intent of the state sovereignty Bills are to erect barriers against an ever-encroaching federal bureaucracy, while keeping the nation unified. That said, Washington D. C. is on a course that will destroy our Constitutional Republic. Nationalized Health Care and a national Cap and Trade program will not lead us out of a recession but
rather will further crush our economy.  If the federal government would get out of the way, we would be free as individual states to fix our own problems as the founders intended.

To that end, recently some Attorneys General across the country are questioning the constitutionality of Nationalized Health Care.  In fact, at least 18 states are now suing the federal government claiming the $2.5 trillion healthcare system reform violates state sovereignty as protected in the U.S. Constitution and will force massive new spending on hard-pressed state governments.  Interestingly, some of the state Attorneys General claim that only the judicial branch may decide what is or is not constitutional but not state elected representatives or county sheriffs. [ii] This flies in the face of the requirement set forth in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution (Oath to support the Constitution binding both federal and state representatives).  To hold such a position renders that Oath of Office meaningless, and brings back the very scary proposition “befehl ist befehl” (an order is an order) used as a defense by Nazi officers at Nuremburg.  It is
important to know where your State Attorney General stands on this issue because Part II of the plan deals with state and local enforcement of unconstitutional laws.

What follows is Part II of the plan.
Step 3:  Restore Sound and Honest Money
The control over the issuance of money is at the heart of sovereignty.  Our current fiat paper currency is losing value by the minute and you and I are paying for it by the day.  Most readers of this article know that since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 in order to “provide a safer, more flexible banking and monetary system” and ensure “stability in the purchasing power of the dollar.” Since that time the US dollar has lost 97% of its value.  So what can we do at the state level?  In order to restore a system of sound money two immediate pieces of legislation can be introduced:

Sound Money Resolution
Legal Tender Act
The more pressure states put on Congress to audit the Federal Reserve System, the greater the chance is that it will be exposed as a private group of bankers profiteering at public expense and then be phased out.  Like the state sovereignty resolutions, the Sound Money Resolution would put the government on notice to return to the original monetary system envisioned by our founders. [iii] This means an end to the fractional reserve banking as we know it and a return to currency that is backed by gold and silver and perhaps even commodities.

Dr. Edwin Viera Jr., a constitutional attorney and an expert in monetary theory who has litigated cases involving money issues, has said that the entire present monetary system is unconstitutional.  He proposes a precious-metals-based monetary system in which the state government collects part of its tax revenue from corporations in gold.  New Hampshire and Indiana, currently have that kind of legislation before them.  I would add that the next step should be to establish a private currency exchange in conjunction with a new monetary system.  This will be the subject of a future article.

Next, states can require the federal government to tender all payments in gold and silver.  The U.S. Constitution in Article 1 section 10 clearly states “No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…”[iv] The practical result of returning to this constitutional requirement will likely be the federal government ceasing to send any money to the states.  What an excellent day that would be! This would force states to budget and fix problems themselves without relying on federal handouts.  Another benefit will be ensuring state solvency even if the federal government goes bankrupt.  Lastly, it calls the bluff of the federal government.  You will recall in Part I of the plan the creation of a Federal Tax Escrow Account, which would offset this loss of money.  It will become immediately apparent which states send the federal government more money than they receive.

Step 4:  If State Legislatures Fail, Introduce the Laws through the Initiative Process


The people are the final check and balance because power is inherent in the people.  Many state legislatures will refuse to even hear the above ten bills when freedom-minded legislators introduce them.  Such was the case in my own state of Washington.  No matter.  In many states, the people have reserved for themselves the final power of legislation through the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Process.

Twenty-four states currently have an Initiative process. Check here for the process in your state. Since the legislation is already written, it only needs to be slightly modified to include the words “Be it enacted by the people of [your state].”  Grassroots activists should be mindful that the ballot title and summary for an Initiative is going to require an attorney.  Identify them now (yes Constitutional freedom-minded Attorneys exist like Stephen Pidgeon of Everett, Washington).

Next, activists should contact all freedom groups and bring them together into one network on the Internet.  Remember that the Internet is to the state sovereignty movement what the printing press was to the Bible.  This is not centralized control but merely a way to quickly transmit to, and share information with, thousands of like-minded people.  For example, in Washington such a network called the “Liberty Groups” has started a state sovereignty initiative drive and website, Freedom Initiatives, and continues to share information and coordinate on many issues.  This is not about who leads what. Such squabbles must quickly give way to the overarching mission of restoring our Constitutional Republic. This is also not a Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party, or Democrat “thing” but a “we the people” reclaiming our country “thing.”

Before I move on, I want to address a couple of arguments that are typically raised by people who oppose the use of the Initiative process.  The arguments usually fall along three lines and I will answer each in turn:

1)      Direct Democracy is a dangerous thing and usually comes back around to bite you in the tail. This ignores the people as the final check and balance in our system. Furthermore, I believe we must exhaust all possible remedies at our disposal due to the urgency of the current situation.

2)      If the Initiative fails, practically speaking, it is impossible to bring the issue up again even decades later. This assumes we have decades.  The many experts I have read and talked to give our Constitutional Republic 6-10 years in a best-case scenario[v] and 6 months to 2 years worst case scenario.[vi] Now is the time to draw a line in the sand…our backs are against the wall.

3)      It wastes precious time and resources. This assumes an initiative will fail and also ignores the benefit of being able to educate voters through the Initiative process while simultaneously galvanizing a core grass roots team.  It also allows you to hold elected officials accountable by asking them point-blank “do you support the Initiative to nullify Nationalized Health Care?”


Step 5:  Contact all County Sheriffs and get them to commit to keep their oaths.

As described in Part I the whole principle of a Sheriff’s First bill is that no one is above the law…including federal agents.[vii] Federal agents will claim they “have the authority, period.” This begs a great question.  How will a law passed at the federal level be enforced locally?  The answer in almost every scenario involves the county Sheriff.  This is the Achilles Heel of almost all current federal schemes to socialize our economy. That is also why in most states ‘Task Forces” have been established to coordinate federal, state, and local law enforcement.  If all politics is local…it can fairly be said that so is all enforcement of criminal and civil penalties.

Consequently, the laws we have are only as good as those officers that enforce them at the local level.  Thus, the rise of tyranny must first come through both the United States Military and the County Sheriff.  And this can only happen if those same people violate their oaths to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and their own State’s Constitution.  As discussed in Part I, the county Sheriff is the primary (chief) law enforcement officer in the United States.   Therefore, if you are an interested activist, you should make a personal visit to your County Sheriff.  Here are some ideas for your visit:

Ask if your Sheriff will become an Oath Keeper.  Oath Keepers is a nonprofit organization started by Stewart Rhodes (attorney and Army veteran) which advocates that its members (current and former military and law enforcement) uphold the Constitution of the United States should they be ordered to violate it.
Invite your Sheriff to publicly reaffirm his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and your respective state.
Give your Sheriff a copy of former Sheriff Richard Mack’s book The County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope.
Ask your Sheriff if he has a local “Safety Committee” or similar group, which is the modern day version of a posse and what the requirements are to join.[viii] Become engaged with the local Sheriff’s office, it will help them with critical manpower needs and, it will give you an opportunity to try and influence this critical link in our governmental chain.
Summary

5 Steps

Reclaim State Sovereignty through key Nullification Legislation
Erect an Impenetrable Barrier around the 2nd Amendment and the County Sheriff
Restore Sound and Honest Money
Introduce 10th Amendment Initiatives
Help your Sheriff become an Oath Keeper
10 Bills

State Sovereignty Resolution
Health Care Freedom Act
Energy Freedom Act
Right to Constitutional Government Act
Federal Tax Escrow Account
Fire Arms Freedom Act
Right to Protection Act
Sheriff First Act
Sound Money Resolution
Legal Tender Act
There are many other ideas out there but we believed these would be quickest way to restore our Constitutional Republic.  This is not to say that securing our borders, state enforcement of immigration laws, repealing the 17th Amendment, eliminating 501(c)(3) for churches, reforming the elections process, restraining the courts, or restoring grand jury presentments are not important and worthy goals.  But the legislation as outlined above is the immediate priority.  To be clear, Legislation alone is not the answer nor do we need to change the face of our national government to change the direction of our country.     Ultimately the survival of our Constitutional Republic depends on the people.  It depends on the courage and boldness of each one of us.  It depends on each one of us answering “everything” to the question “what am I willing to sacrifice for freedom?” The fight for freedom is ultimately a matter of the heart before it is a county or
state movement.  And so I pray you will help restore our Constitutional Republic so that our children and grandchildren may inherit, as we did, the blessings of liberty and freedom.

Matthew Shea [send him email] is a State Representative in Washington’s 4th District. He’s the author of HJM4009 for State Sovereignty.  Visit his website.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” Publius (James Madison) Federalist No. 39. 1788.
[ii] In a letter dated February 10, 2010, Idaho’s Attorney General Lawrence G. Wasden wrote: “It is simply not within the Idaho Attorney General’s or the Idaho Legislature’s authority to declare federal laws null and void; that authority lies exclusively with the Supreme Court of the United States and the federal courts created by Congress.”  Notably, Mr. Wasden cites no authority for this proposition.

[iii] The Federal Monetary System was established in 1792 with the creation of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia. The first American coins were struck in 1793. The U.S. Coinage Act of 1792, consistent with the Constitution, provided for a U.S. Mint, which stamped silver and gold coins. The importance of this Act cannot be stressed enough.  The Act invoked the death penalty for anyone found to be debasing money.  President George Washington also mentions the importance of the national currency backed by gold and silver throughout his initial term of office and he contributed his own silver for the initial coins minted. The purchase of The US Mint in Philadelphia was the first money appropriated by Congress for a building to be used for a public purpose. It was purchased for a total of $4,266.67 on July 18, 1792.

A dollar was originally defined as 371.25 grains (troy) of fine silver.  Our entire monetary system was based proportionally off this measurement.  This has been changed since.

[v] Business Week posts an optimistic report in “Housing: The Roof Won’t Collapse On The U.S. Economy”

Art Laffer in the WSJ predicts 2011, “Tax hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse” and Peter Schiff paints an equally gloomy picture in “The Phantom Recovery”

[vii] Some have claimed that a Sheriff First law prevents federal agents from arresting terrorists and/or would hamper their ability to do so.  This is absurd for many reasons not the least of which is the Task Force example given.  Federal agents are already working with county Sheriffs and getting permission would not “stall” an operation.  However, a clause clarifying this should be added to any Sheriff First bill so that the issue is crystal clear.   Also, tying this legislation to the enforcement of a specific bill like Nationalized Health Care would remove this objection.

[viii] Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, is a leader in the country on the formation of a modern day “posse.”
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 08:56:55 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #59 on: July 08, 2010, 09:30:21 AM »

Sheriff 1st legislation would formally declare that all federal agents and officers must give notice of, and seek permission before, any arrest, search, or seizure occurs. Thus, federal agents and officers seeking to enforce unconstitutional laws must go through the county Sheriff first.


**Bad idea. The current mishmash of various overlapping local, state, federal agencies is actually the best model for law enforcement in a free society.**
Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #60 on: July 08, 2010, 01:43:38 PM »

GM

Why do you feel that way?  What is the advantage of the system now vs local control?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #61 on: July 08, 2010, 05:28:32 PM »

1. The idea of the powerful elected sheriff tends only to exist in the western US. In some parts of the US, the sheriff is mostly empowered to serve legal process and run the county jail, if that.

2. Local control doesn't mean corruption-free. In fact, often local level law enforcement can reflect local level power structures that can be quite corrupt. The fact that state and federal law enforcement entities are lurking about acts as a separation of powers that provides oversight and protection to the public that the "benevolent dictator" model of the sheriff does not.

3. The idea that federal law enforcement is actively oppressing the public is more the result of active imaginations motivated by political agendas rather than a tangible reality. Ballpark, there are a total of about 30,000 FBI special agents. That's not much in a nation of 300+ million people. The NYPD is bigger. The FBI is empowered by congress to enforce about 300 or so federal laws. Laws that most people have no dealings with at all.
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #62 on: July 09, 2010, 04:39:23 AM »

Ah, but the variance on the county level allows one to move away and avoid the oppresive systems/ sherriffs, fellow citizens.  When the opressive system is imposed on a national levell what choice is there?  A criminal Sherrif is also way easier to resolve by the citizens of the county than a horde faceless federal g-men.  Those Feds will derive their authoritay from where? The citizens of the county or some faceless "them"?  This Dissociation is at the root of "inside the beltway" and the rest of the country.........

There are tose people who would like a controlled, safe, cradle to grave, bovine level of existance- fine within their county if they can afford it.  The rest of humanity can pursue their own views/ lives in other counties.........
Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #63 on: July 09, 2010, 07:31:02 AM »

I am in Rarick's camp on this one.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #64 on: July 09, 2010, 09:12:04 AM »

  Those Feds will derive their authoritay from where?

**The first federal law enforcement agency (US Marshals) was created by President George Washington following the passage of the judiciary Act of 1789 by congress. They seemed to be under the impression that they had the authority to do so. The very same George Washington sent US Marshals and federal troops to put down a tax rebellion at gunpoint.** 

The citizens of the county or some faceless "them"?

**That was George Washington and the first congress, duly elected and empowered by the brand new constitution.**

  This Dissociation is at the root of "inside the beltway" and the rest of the country.........

**I dunno, the rule of law has worked out pretty well for us. The founding fathers were obviously fans.**
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #65 on: July 09, 2010, 09:34:59 AM »

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/Rainey.htm

Sheriff Lawrence Rainey

Lawrence Rainey was the forty-one-year-old, gruff, barrel-chested, tobacco-chewing sheriff of Neshoba County in 1964.  He was arrested in December of  1964 on charges of conspiring with at least eighteen other persons to deprive three civil rights workers of their civil rights.  The charges grew out of the brutal murders of Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney on June 21 in rural Neshoba County.  Rainey was acquitted in the October, 1967 Mississippi Burning Trial.
Rainey was elected sheriff in November, 1963.  In campaign speeches he told listeners he was "the man who can cope with situations that might arise."  Given the rising racial tensions and Rainey's reputation for being tough on blacks, there was little doubt what sort of "situations" Rainey was referring to.

Rainey was a born and raised in Neshoba County.  He attended school through the eighth grade, then found work as a mechanic before entering law enforcement.  In October, 1959, working as a Philadelphia, Mississippi police officer, Rainey shot and killed a black man from Chicago as he was complying with Rainey's order to get out of his car.  No charges against Rainey grew out of the incident.  His reputation for brutality grew.  In one particularly vicious incident, Rainey participated in the whipping with a heavy leather belt of a black who had been stripped naked.

To those who were white and neither labor organizers or civil rights workers, Rainey was downright friendly.  According to one Rainey supporter, "He had a grin, a wave, and a good word for every friend he met."  The gregarious sheriff wore a Stetson hat, cowboy boots, and a loaded six-shooter as he wielded his considerable discretionary power in Neshoba County.

On June 21, 1964, at the time of the civil rights workers' arrests, Rainey was in Meridian visiting his sick wife at the hospital.  Although he stopped at the courthouse around 8 p.m. that evening, it is not clear that he learned of the civil rights workers arrest and later release until he talked to Deputy Sheriff  Cecil Price at the jail sometime after midnight.  According to Rainey, Price told him that the three had been released about 10:30 p.m.  What is highly likely, given the close relationship between the sheriff and his deputy and their common hatred of civil rights workers, is that in that meeting Rainey was told in detail of the successful execution of the conspiracy to murder Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney.  It is, of course, quite possible that Rainey was himself involved in the conspiracy, although this was not proven successfully at trial.

Following his arrest on conspiracy charges, Rainey became a virtual folk hero to local whites.  He received applause, pats on the back, gifts, and even was sought to endorse products and services ranging from chewing tobacco to chiropractic back pain treatments.

Rainey's term as sheriff ended in November, 1967.  After his trial, Rainey was unable to find employment in law enforcement.   He accepted work as a security guard first at a supermarket, then at the Meridian Mall.  Rainey complained in the mid-seventies, "The FBI set out to break me of everything l had, then keep me down where I could never get another start, and they done it."

Rainey suffered from throat cancer and tongue cancer.  He died on November 8, 2002 at age 79.
Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #66 on: July 09, 2010, 10:23:32 AM »

County Sheriff Can Bust Big Brother: Wyoming Sheriffs Put Feds in Their Place





 

The duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county. He has law enforcement powers that exceed that of any other state or federal official.

This is settled law that most people are not aware of.

County sheriffs in Wyoming have scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and states rights. The sheriffs slapped a federal intrusion upside the head and are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activity in a Wyoming County with the Sheriff’s Office. Deja vu for those who remember big Richard Mack in Arizona.

Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ......

"If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody."

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official." Go back and re-read this quote.

The court confirms and asserts that "the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official." And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not in Wyoming, not yet.

But it gets even better. Since the judge stated that the sheriff "has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official," the Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles. They are demanding access to all BATF files. Why? So as to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. This would be wrong.

The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in Wyoming state courts.

Gosh, it makes one wish that the sheriffs of the counties relative to Waco, Texas and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma regarding their jurisdictions were drinking the same water these Wyoming sheriffs are.

Sheriff Mattis said, "I am reacting in response to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law." [Amen].

However, the sad reality is that sheriffs are elected, and that means they are required to be both law enforcement officials and politicians as well. Unfortunately, Wyoming sheriffs are the exception rather than the rule . . . but they shouldn’t be. Sheriffs have enormous power, if or when they choose to use it. I share the hope of Sheriff Mattis that "more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens."

If Wyoming Sheriffs can follow in the steps of former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and recognize both their power and authority, they could become champions for the memory of Thomas Jefferson who died thinking that he had won those "states’ rights" debates with Alexander Hamilton.

This case is not just some amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal. This case is yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet totally dead, or in a complete decay in the United States. It is also significant in that it can, may, and hopefully will be interpreted to mean that "political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to the States."

Winston Churchill observed, "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fights with all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is not hope of victory at all, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2747:us-sheriffs-have-highest-power-constitutional-right-to-keep-feds-out&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=64&lang=en
« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 10:33:08 AM by Freki » Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #67 on: July 09, 2010, 10:42:32 AM »

2nd post

Written by: Michael Boldin


Sheriff Supremacy
by
Richard I. Mack
On June 2, 1993, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) federal agents along with two Big Horn County, Wyoming deputies raided the home of Ramon and Elvia Castaneda.

The deputies were there only to assist INS agents and basically got caught in the “crossfire” of federal in competency and arrogance. The Castaneda v USA case does something for all Americans that has never been done before; it answers the question; who is the ultimate law enforcement authority in this country?

Big Horn County and its officers were sued in this case because they trusted INS agents to be acting within proper parameters of the law. However, INS agents failed to do their homework and did not even have a warrant.

So the INS asked for assistance from the Big Horn County Sheriff’s office to raid the home (late at night) of the Castaneda family to capture some illegal aliens. The Sheriff’s office cooperated with the INS and in doing so got them in trouble. However, there was one other problem with the federal agents’ homework. The Castanedas were American citizens.

A minor dispute still remains unsettled as to how the armed officers entered the Castaneda home. The Castanedas claimed the agents simply barged in without knocking or appropriately announcing their intentions. The government claims their courteous announcements and knocks were ignored so they entered the home anyway. Regardless, the Castanedas claimed to be asleep at the time of the raid, which would seem to be reasonable thing to be doing late at night.

The Castanedas filed a lawsuit with a host of defendants including Big Horn County and Federal officials. The case was cut and dry. The feds were wrong and their actions were untenable, The Castanedas could have sat back and waited greedily for their attorneys to fill in the amount of their checks, but they wanted to do something else. As part of the settlement the Castanedas wanted some insurance that this type of governmental abuse would not recur or ever happen to others.

To their everlasting credit, the Castanedas took a rather nominal amount of cash in exchange for a policy, which seemed to them, the best “check and balance” systems that would essentially stop the federal government from anymore potential abuses.

Amazingly and quite simply, the Castanedas demanded, as part of their federal lawsuit settlement, that the Big Horn County Sheriff’s office devise a policy that required all federal agencies to check with the Sheriff before they could take any action in Big Horn County.

Coincidentally, this policy fell on the lap of Sheriff Dave Mattis who was not even Sheriff at the time of the raid. However, Sheriff Mattis agreed with the policy and helped develop this most novel and unique agreement that the lawyers of the United States Justice Department also signed. However, the Justice Department took steps to keep this agreement secret and undisclosed. Imagine a small town sheriff in a county of only 12,000 people being the overseer of federal agencies within his county!

Is this policy an unusual novelty or a procedure whose time has finally come as an essential and vital part of protecting and serving our citizens? Why would this policy only be beneficial in Big Horn County and not in every in our nations?

Ironically, U.S. Congressman Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) considered proposing legislation that would have established a similar policy for the entire nation at just about the same exact time this settlement was being reached. The Justice Department, FBI and other federal agencies fought and lobbied tooth and nail to stop Chenoweth’s proposal.

Specifically, the policy to be enforced requires all “federal law enforcement personnel to notify the Sheriff’s Office in advance of any federal law enforcement operation in Big Horn County, Wyoming.” Several other guidelines must be followed in regards to showing proper paperwork and the establishments of probable cause to be justify federal law enforcement presence.

What would it hurt (and who would it benefit) if the FBI, IRS, BATF, etc. were doing this in every county? Why would the federal government oppose such common sense practices that they should already be doing anyways? The end result is added safety and protection to the citizens. The only thing preventing this policy from bring realized nationwide is the Sheriff himself failing to take a strong stand and the arrogance and pride of federal agencies.

Two and a half years ago congress conducted hearings regarding the abuse of the IRS. Citizens and IRS employees alike testified about IRS criminality. After any Sheriff has been made aware of the abusive history of the IRS, the crimes committed by the AFT and FBI at WACO and Ruby Ridge, how could he comply with protecting and serving his constituents if he allowed these federal agencies unbridled authority in his county?

The United States Constitution (Article 1 Section  grants 4 law enforcement categories to the federal government: felonies committed on the high seas, counterfeiting, postal issues and treason. Protecting our nation’s borders would also be an appropriate constitutional federal obligation. But many of these federal agencies have become powers unto themselves and are the tails wagging the dog.

Many of these federal agencies have lost sight of their true missions and have gotten for whom they work and who they are suppose to serve and protect. Now we are coming to the point of being forced to turn to our Sheriffs and local authorities to protect and serve us from federal “protectors”.

In fact, what does a Sheriff who knows and understands the significance of the Second Amendment and his oath of office do when agents come in his jurisdiction to confiscate guns of law abiding citizens? Castaneda v USA proves the Sheriff is the answer, Sheriff Mattis has proven it works and common sense proves all Sheriffs should be doing it.

Why is the Sheriff the ultimate and leading law enforcement authority in America? Because he is elected by the ultimate power source, the people, and the answers directly to them. He is not an appointed bureaucrat and lives in the community he serves. He is in all matters, the people’s defender.

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center and resides in Los Angeles.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #68 on: July 09, 2010, 01:27:19 PM »

What would it hurt (and who would it benefit) if the FBI, IRS, BATF, etc. were doing this in every county? Why would the federal government oppose such common sense practices that they should already be doing anyways?

**What of the justice for murdered civil rights workers in sheriff Rainey's jurisdiction with sheriff supremacy?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #69 on: July 09, 2010, 02:57:24 PM »

This is very interesting.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #70 on: July 09, 2010, 04:00:32 PM »

NORTH CAROLINA SHERIFF PLEADS GUILTY TO

ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER'S PHONE CALLS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A Sheriff in North Carolina pled guilty today to wiretapping and recording a high school teacher's telephone calls, which the Sheriff intended to use to force the teacher out of his job.

Mitchell County Sheriff Vernon Lowell Bishop, 37, who was indicted last June by a federal grand jury in Charlotte, admitted that he directed his deputies to illegally record a Mitchell County High School teacher's conversations, which the teacher made from his home on a cordless phone.

Count one of the three-count indictment charged Bishop with intentionally procuring a deputy sheriff, who worked at Bishop's direction, to illegally record the teacher's conversations for the purpose of forcing the teacher out of his job. The second and third counts of the indictment charged Bishop with intentionally disclosing the contents of the illegally recorded conversations to members of the school system and the press in order to further his purpose. Today, Bishop pled guilty to the first count of the indictment and the government agreed to dismiss the other two charges.

"It is especially troubling when those who are charged with protecting the public abuse their positions of power and violate the public trust," said Mark T. Calloway, U.S. Attorney in Charlotte, North Carolina. "Law enforcement has a duty to bring to justice those in law enforcement who knowingly violate the law."

The charges stem from an investigation by the North Carolina SBI and the Justice Department.

Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the terms of the plea agreement, the United States has agreed to recommend that Bishop be sentenced to either home detention and/or probation. In addition, Bishop has agreed to compensate the teacher $15,339 for lost wages as a result of Bishop's illegal conduct. Under North Carolina law, the felony conviction will prevent Bishop from working in law enforcement again. The court has not yet set a date for sentencing.

"As this case demonstrates, the Justice Department will vigorously enforce federal legislation designed to ensure the privacy of all Americans,"said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kevin Di Gregory.

The case was prosecuted by William Boyum, Assistant U.S. Attorney in Asheville, North Carolina, and Marc J. Zwillinger, Trial Attorney, Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, Criminal Division.
Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #71 on: July 09, 2010, 04:20:40 PM »

I will grant there are bad sheriffs, but sheriffs are elected.  If they are mis behaving then the citizens would kick them out.  Overall with the Fed overstepping their constitutional bounds we have to draw a line in the sand.  The most promising place to take a stand is with the powerful position of the sheriff.  This combined with state nullification will go a long way to restore the checks and balances that are out of kilter.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #72 on: July 09, 2010, 04:39:04 PM »

Really? How would the citizens know a sheriff was engaging in criminal activities if there was no investigation and prosecution?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #73 on: July 09, 2010, 05:49:04 PM »

I sense a circle here.

Perhaps this takes us to the FF's point about what they constructed requiring a moral, spiritual people if it were to work.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #74 on: July 09, 2010, 06:10:31 PM »

The founding fathers had law enforcement, including federal law enforcement from the dawn of the American Republic, knowing full well that there are always the need for such things, even amongst a moral, spiritual people.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #75 on: July 09, 2010, 06:38:35 PM »

I was thinking more of the eternal dance between central and local power.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #76 on: July 09, 2010, 06:46:04 PM »

Well, from the beginning, the federalists and anti-federalists were forced to compromise. The concept of checks and balances on power was well understood by the founders, and the mosaic of law enforcement entities that exist in the US today evolved from that concept.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #77 on: July 09, 2010, 09:05:26 PM »

Exactly so.  smiley
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #78 on: July 10, 2010, 04:58:14 AM »

Except in recent years the balance has been getting too federal, and too paramilitary.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #79 on: July 10, 2010, 10:44:05 AM »

The mishmash and contention in law enforcement is interesting and probably very healthy both here and in the jurisdictions.  I see the L.E. issue differently than say schools, roads, libraries where the locals deserve full responsibility.  Some of the worst crime in Minneapolis for example may come out of gangs (or mob) from Chicago, LA, Mexico or Russia.  If the crime or terrorism is organized and planned elsewhere it may never be possible for the locals to catch up with.  That said, I think most people understand when you cross state lines you face different laws. different enforcement and different penalties (except of course for partial birth murders where the states are not to be trusted). 

The feds were instrumental in taking out some local corruption at the city level here recently, yet I strongly oppose any move from where we are now toward anything that resembles a federal police force.

Our county's population has grown to well over a million people, larger than 8 states, where the entire republic in 1789 was less than 4 million.  Power in the hands of the county sheriff here is not exactly local control either although he is elected and removable.

Federal involvement in cross-state crime should not be confused with the other federal activities where there is no legitimate constitutional justification.

On the other side of it, the idea that local officers in 'sanctuary cities' can be instructed to oppose federal law and not report federal violations that they observe to federal authority also seems to me like a dereliction.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #80 on: July 10, 2010, 04:33:35 PM »

Except in recent years the balance has been getting too federal, and too paramilitary.

Roughly, there are about 7.5 local/state LEOs for every federal LEO, and the vast majority of those feds have jurisdictions over federal reservations, facilities, prisons or act as investigators for the Inspectors General prosecuting waste/fraud/abuse inside federal agencies. As far as paramilitary, the US adopted the paramilitary model for uniformed police agencies from Sir Robert Peel's Metropolitan Police around 1833.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #81 on: July 12, 2010, 07:03:43 AM »

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/09/federal-judge-rules-the-defense-of-marriage-act-unconstitutional-will-it-stick.html

Federal Judge Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional. Will It Stick?
by Tara A. LewisJuly 09, 2010
Yesterday, Massachusetts federal district Judge Joseph Tauro declared that gay men and women recognized as married by their individual states should have access to the same federal benefits as heterosexual married couples. In doing so, he declared Article III of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, unconstitutional. The controversial decision posits the question for both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage of how to best support their cases and what the rulings, now under review by the Obama administration, will bring in the long term.

Tauro ruled on two cases, one filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and the other by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a New England–based advocacy organization. His decisions apply only to Massachusetts residents. In those rulings, Tauro wrote that DOMA, enacted by Congress in 1996, violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution by encroaching upon the state’s right to define marriage. It also violated the Constitution's equal-protection clause. In essence, since the federal law does not recognize same-sex marriage (though it's been legal in Massachusetts since 2004), Massachusetts would have to discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them the federal benefits straight married couples receive. 


Though the ruling may be a major victory for gay couples in Massachusetts, several law professors and supporters of gay-marriage are afraid the decisions will be appealed. Jack Balkin, a law professor and political and legal blogger, writes that though he supports same-sex marriage, the arguments of Tauro’s decisions are “at war with each other” in both emphasizing a need for state sovereignty but also the federal government’s requirement to regulate family life through federal programs and benefits. Law professor and blogger Steven Taylor writes that were the 10th Amendment ruling the only one, it may “have the effect of reinforcing the constitutionality of bans on same-sex marriage around the country,” by “placing public policy over marriage in the hands of the state.” He hypothesizes that the equal-protection argument will likely prove more successful in future cases, specifically those dealing with same-sex couples who move from a state that recognizes gay marriage to one that does not.



Tauro’s ruling poses a dilemma for some conservatives, who often turn to the 10th Amendment when fighting for gun rights, school prayer, and in opposing the Obama administration's health-care reform and Wall Street bailouts. In an blog post titled "Why Teapartiers Should Oppose DOMA," The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan writes that “The right is hoist on their own federalist petard and will now have to choose whether states' rights or marriage inequality is more important to them.” Whatever happens, Tauro’s ruling is a stir of life in an otherwise slow-moving debate on same-sex marriage: activists on both sides of the issue are still waiting for a ruling in California's Proposition 8 case, which challenges the state's ban on gay marriage. The L.A. Times reports that false rumors of a verdict from U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn R.Walker drew disappointed crowds to San Francisco. And as with any new decision the lasting impacts of Tauro’s ruling remain unknown (though some are speculating on the backlash).

The Obama administration is now reviewing the ruling to decide whether the federal government will file an appeal. In June, Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that though President Obama wants a legislative appeal of DOMA, “until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.”




 

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #82 on: July 12, 2010, 07:53:54 AM »

Wow, a liberal judge legislating from the bench. Shocking....
Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #83 on: July 21, 2010, 09:42:19 AM »

Judicial Supremacy or State Nullification?

by Marty Babitz, New Jersey Tenth Amendment Center

There was a time, in the early days of our Constitutional Republic, that the forces of monarchy and tyranny ran deeper than perhaps even today. In 1798, our would-be King John Adams and his Federalist henchmen in Congress trumped up war fever, a tyrant’s best friend, to pass a Sedition Law that made criticism of the President and Congress, interestingly the very ones who enacted this law, a jailable offense.

Vice President Thomas Jefferson, an opponent of the Federalists, who was inconveniently omitted from the protection of this law, jumped into action, but secretly for fear of the Federalists and prison where many of his colleagues in government and the press had been sent under this nefarious law.

Jefferson and James Madison drafted Resolutions that were passed by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures respectively, whose principles can be summarized by this statement from Jefferson’s pen appearing in the Kentucky version:

“The principle and construction contended for that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction, and that a NULLIFICATION by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”

Many would assert the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause against the above, which provides that the Constitution and federal laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. But that clause instead unequivocally proves the validity of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions: if a federal law is not made pursuant to the Constitution, but is rather an invalid unconstitutional law, then it is not the supreme law of the land; it is not a law at all, and is therefore null and void.

What happened in the last 212 years that has kept these Principles of ’98 out of our consciousness? One of the key answers to this question contains the means by which to make the nullification movement far more effective going forward.

Over the past decades, every attorney and judge learns “Constitutional law” in our Law Schools, the bastions of nationalists and judicial supremacists. When we show up for our first day of class, we are not given the Constitution, even though it consists of about 7,500 words and we are otherwise expected to read tens of thousands of words nightly. Instead, we receive a very thick textbook, loaded with Opinions issued by the United States Supreme Court. We are told by our Professor that the Constitution is a living document, one that the Supreme Court breathes life into by interpreting, constructing and discerning the true meaning through consulting whatever they deem appropriate in their discretion, including changing societal trends, studies by Sociologists, international law and the like.

And to prove that this is the correct, valid, procedure for “making” Constitutional law, the very first case assigned is the one termed the most important in our history, the landmark 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Many Americans have heard of this celebrated case. Why?
Because in that case, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the Supreme Court was duty bound, under the oath each Justice takes to support the Constitution, to treat unconstitutional laws of Congress as void, and of no force or effect.

Of course, Marshall’s ruling is an exact repeat of the very same principle found in those principles of ’98. Every judge, every Congressperson, every President, Governor and state legislator, in both levels of government, take that oath to support the Constitution.

The Marbury v. Madison ruling confirmed the same principle as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions: any federal or state government official is duty-bound under his or her oath, required by Article VI of the Constitution, to uphold the Constitution, and therefore must treat any unconstitutional law, action, or ruling of another branch of either level of government as void, and of no force or effect.

In other words, the very bedrock of the Supreme Court’s assertion of the power to nullify federal or state laws is identical to the one found in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

So how did the legal and judicial profession, and correspondingly most Americans, become conditioned to believe that his duty of nullification was exclusively reserved to the Supreme Court alone? Because the same essential principle, contained in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, was lambasted by Federalists, desiring absolute national supremacy, as dangerous and wrong in the hands of the state legislatures as representatives of the sovereign people. But the same assertion was magically labeled “judicial review” when announced by the Chief Justice Marshall just five years later, implying a special supreme exclusive power carved out solely for those un-elected, life-tenured, completely unaccountable oracles on the Supreme Court.

Soon after Marbury v. Madison, the concept of judicial review was applied to the review of state laws, with the result that over the past two hundred years a small handful of federal laws have been invalidated by the Supreme Court while scores of state laws and rulings have been overturned.

Of course, when lawyers and judges complete law school without even reading the Constitution, instead learning from the vaunted faculty that the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the exclusive arbiter of that document, you are conditioned to believe it. And if lawyers and judges are so conditioned, then so will everyone, taking their cue from the respected legal and judicial profession allegedly charged with guarding our sacred Constitution. Of course, beyond the conditioning, there is a tremendous incentive for those in the legal field, particularly aspiring judges and Constitutional lawyers, to accept this alleged principle because it transfers power from the Constitution and sovereign people of the United States to them!

In fact, however, there is nothing in Marbury v. Madison to warrant such a supremacy, merely a statement that the Supreme Court, like any other branch of federal or state government, has the authority and duty of Constitutional review in determining whether another branch of its level, or the other level, of government has acted beyond the scope of its powers and infringed on the powers of the other.

In fact, it was not until 1958 that the Supreme Court finally found the audacity to boldly assert that it was, in fact, the sole, exclusive authority on the Constitution. In Cooper v. Aaron, the Court stated that Marbury v. Madison “declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution” and claimed that this alleged principle of judicial supremacy “has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.” And like sheep, we all believed this fraud – one that had been implicitly building for decades. But now, with this so-called “principle” clearly and authoritatively stated by the Court, a wave of even more overreaching violations of our sovereign right of republican self-government came down from on high.

Judicial supremacy has also created the toxic notion of judicial infallibility. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court refused to overturn its precedent regarding the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade on the basis that doing so would damage the rule of law and correspondingly undermine the Court’s legitimacy. The Court also cited the fact that people had come to rely on Roe. Thus, in the Court’s view, the correctness of Roe was not as important as the source, the Court itself, and the people’s reliance on the Court as if it were the Constitution itself. Only a supreme authority such as a monarch or British parliament, rejected by the American Revolution and Declaration of Independence, would assert that its credibility and unquestioned supremacy is paramount to the correctness of its edicts.

Meanwhile, and of equal importance, the Supreme Court, in its alleged role of neutral supreme arbiter of the Constitution, while striking down countless state laws, has rubber stamped the other two branches of its own federal government, the President and Congress, giving them carte blanche to do whatever they please, as we have so clearly witnessed increasingly over our own lifetimes.

So much activity to restore liberty and restrain the federal government has been misallocated toward obtaining the right Justices on the Supreme Court, and petitioning the Court to make the right decisions. We are playing the wrong game with the wrong chips, based on the erroneous concept that the Supreme Court, a branch of the federal government, is the exclusive arbiter of the Constitution and the scope of the powers it delegates to the federal government on the one hand, and reserves to the states and their people on the other.

We must topple this fiction, so deeply ingrained in the legal profession, our history books, and the collective mind of We the People, that Marbury v. Madison vested supremacy over the Constitution in the Supreme Court, when in reality it merely repeated the same principle declared five years earlier in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: an unconstitutional law, action or ruling of the federal government is null and void, and the duty of every state governor, legislature, and court, under the oath they have taken to support the Constitution, is to so nullify it.

Marty Babitz is on the chapter leadership team for the New Jersey Tenth Amendment Center. He is the author of The Illusion of Freedom: How to Restore the True Constitution and Reclaim Liberty Now.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given
Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #84 on: August 01, 2010, 08:47:36 PM »



by Derek Sheriff

James Ostrowski, author of Direct Citizen Action: How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot recently wrote, “In the realm of politics, the best chance the liberty movement has is not winning elections but convincing states and localities to stop cooperating with the federal government. I believe the Tenth Amendment Movement, as it is known, has great potential.”

An important revolutionary principle that American colonists learned from reading “Cato’s Letters” in the mid-18th century was this: Unjust laws must be resisted immediately, or they will set the stage for additional encroachments. One of “Cato’s Letters” explains:

“A nation has but two sorts of usurpation to fear, one from their neighbors and another from their own magistrates. Nor is a foreign usurpation more formidable than a domestic, which is the most dangerous of the two, by being hardest to remove and generally stealing upon the people by degrees, is fixed before is scarce felt or apprehended.”

Thomas Jefferson had a personal copy of “Cato’s Letters” in his home library and he put this principle into action when the so called federalists began arresting their political opponents and throwing them in jail. While still serving as vice president, he secretly urged immediate resistance by drafting what have come to be known as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

The reason he drafted those resolutions was to convince state legislators that nullification was the most appropriate form of immediate resistance . The reason I wrote this essay, is to convince American libertarians today of the same thing. I won’t go into detail explaining what nullification is. There are plenty of other articles widely available which already do that – not to mention Tom Woods’ latest, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.

The Problem of Power

In an oration in 1772, John Adams declared that, “Liberty, under every conceivable form of government is always in danger.”

26 years later, he personified that very danger when he signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made criticizing the president and others in the federal government a crime. Adams showed us that government is the greatest threat to liberty because it always tends toward the destruction of the individual’s natural rights.

Because government is such a dangerous concentration of power, American revolutionaries recognized the absolute necessity of limiting government power and dividing it into as many competing jurisdictions as possible. The hope was that under such an arrangement, the federal government would be held in check and people would have the option to move freely between more powerful, but competing states. Competition would keep their multiple jurisdictions from becoming intolerably oppressive.

This decentralized condition, which is called federalism, should be very desirable to libertarians. Why? Because if they are forced to live under a government at all, this condition at least makes it much easier for them to move to a state with more freedom or chip away at their own state government, to the point that it barely escapes being no government at all. So why is this not our condition today? At least one very important reason is because we have not insisted that our state governments use nullification.

For the first time since the 1850s, such a condition is a real possibility in America. Political, technological and economic conditions are coinciding to create what could be a perfect storm. In military terminology, conditions such as weather can be used as force multipliers, which make a given force more effective than that same force would be without it. In addition to making the most of economic and technological force multipliers, what is needed next is greater acceptance and approval by the majority of Americans for the widespread use of state nullification. Successfully gaining that acceptance and approval at a time when the federal government is perceived as being bankrupt, both financially and morally, could bring about radical decentralization sooner than most libertarians could have imagined just two decades ago. In his 1975 research article entitled, The American Revolution and the Minority Myth, William F. Marina wrote:

“What I am suggesting is that the question of legitimacy is really at the heart of the whole process of revolution. A revolution is impossible unless a majority withdraws its allegiance from the old regime and begins to place it elsewhere. Often that process is masked to the point that when the old regime collapses, the fall appears more ‘sudden’ than was actually the case.”

Considering what lies ahead of us economically, it seems not only plausible, but probable, that people will soon begin to rapidly transfer legitimacy from Washington, DC to their state capital, partly from disgust and partly out of sheer necessity.

Nullification: Revolutionary or Reformist?

This scenario has nothing to do with overturning the constitutional order. In fact, it is precisely how the constitutional order was supposed to work in the first place. The use of nullification by states to neutralize acts of federal usurpation is both constitutional and revolutionary at the core. William J. Watkins explains it like this in his book, Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy:

“The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, written over two decades after the colonies declared independence from Great Britain, represent a reaffirmation of the spirit of 1776. At the core, the Resolutions are intrepid statements in favor of self-government and limited central authority. A product of the political and constitutional battlegrounds of the 1790′s, the resolutions serve to link the federal union created by the Constitution with the aspirations of the patriots of the American Revolution. Indeed the touch of the author of the Declaration of Independence is unmistakable when one reads the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.”

Unlike the reformist strategy which seeks to mobilize power within Washington, DC in order to reform and redirect that power, nullification seeks to diminish and redistribute that power through relentless, decentralized, but ideally coordinated, acts of state level, constitutional resistance.

Over the past few years, state legislators across the country have created a heavy wave of nullification legislation. We libertarians need to grab our surfboards!

Revolutionizing the Tea Party

As libertarians, we must play a leading role by carrying out the labor-intensive but very fruitful task of selling nullification to non-libertarians who are already mobilized. These Americans are extremely upset and have become very active in grassroots organizations. Unfortunately, they are transfixed by national politics and attribute too much importance to wining in federal elections. What they have not yet realized is that their almost exclusive reliance on electoral means to oppose federal tyranny will only get them more of the same. Libertarians should, therefore, act alongside them in ways that do not compromise our principles, while simultaneously wining their support for nullification legislation and directing their attention to state level solutions that involve more radical means of resistance. Those running for, or already elected to state office need to be sold on the constitutionality, morality and effectiveness of nullification. The good
news is that unlike beltway insiders, most of these people actually live and work in your community.

Libertarian intellectuals, leaders and grassroots organizations have been busy manufacturing the tools and preparing the soil for us. Tom Woods, for example, has just written what some have called a handbook on nullification. One well known talk show host has called it, “a battle plan” and “the answer to our prayers.” The Tenth Amendment Center has been tracking recent nullification legislation, writing new and improved bills, and working with state legislators to get them introduced and passed.

On top of all that, a host of organizations like Downsize DC, Campaign For Liberty, Daily Paul, and others have joined the Tenth Amendment Center and libertarian activist Trevor Lyman in sponsoring the Nullify Now! tour, something that advocates of this essential principle may have thought impossible just a few years ago. The tour will feature speakers almost all libertarians know and respect – Tom Woods, Jim Babka, Tom Mullen, Michael Boldin, Jack Hunter and others. These speakers will give grassroots activists and people in state government a logical, moral, and constitutionally sound case for nullification.

The ground has been prepared and conditions are favorable for radical decentralization . Whether a critical mass of libertarians will get involved in this new movement and make use of the tools available to them before this decisive point in history has passed us by remains to be seen. You can be sure that there are plenty of politicians in Washington, DC who live in fear of the day that states, guided by liberty activists, stand together and once again make use of that powerful weapon called nullification. That’s why they want it to remain taboo to even discuss it. And it’s why we libertarians must do everything we can to advertise it.

Derek J. Sheriff [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center. His blog and podcast “Principles of ‘98″ can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #85 on: August 03, 2010, 06:55:21 AM »

Except in recent years the balance has been getting too federal, and too paramilitary.

Roughly, there are about 7.5 local/state LEOs for every federal LEO, and the vast majority of those feds have jurisdictions over federal reservations, facilities, prisons or act as investigators for the Inspectors General prosecuting waste/fraud/abuse inside federal agencies. As far as paramilitary, the US adopted the paramilitary model for uniformed police agencies from Sir Robert Peel's Metropolitan Police around 1833.

Those local police are funded by federal grants, and SWAT teams haven't existed until the 70's.  Even then only large cities with seriously armed drug salesmen.  Now they send out SWAT teams for all sorts of errands in many smaller towns- gotta justify the federal funds.   Too paramilitary...........

Federal Funds= federal LEO
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #86 on: August 03, 2010, 09:38:30 AM »

The term SWAT was coined by the LAPD in 1968. The use of special units with weapons not normally in routine police service well predates SWAT. A law enforcement agency receiving federal funds does not make the officers federal by any reasonable definition. There is no funding mechanism that requires SWAT call outs to justify federal funds.
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #87 on: August 04, 2010, 07:23:29 AM »

Sounds like the usuall bureaucratese, hide in the trees...... Federal funds come into the department somewhere and allow funding of........... which allows for funding of the SWAT team out of local dollars giving the plausible deniability bereaucrats crave and hide behind.   The deparment would neither be as big or have the additional heavy firepower without those funds.   I know cities have put together special task forces for problems on a temporary basis- because they lacked funds to finance it on a regular basis.  With federal funds thos become permanent.

The SWAT teams were a response to the unrest of the 60's and probably would have been temporary, but with the new war on drugs developing they got mission creep. They became permanent fixtures, and what the big kids do, the little kids like to emulate.  Smaller cities started up SWATs, maybe for the $ needed in other areas, or just because of cool factor.  I am mentioning SWAT, but I am sure there are other similar programs I am just picking low hanging fruit.  (something about APC's comes to mind.....) No more special units like "The Untouchables" that existed and then go away.

I understand there is a need for tools, I just do not trust that those tools are being put to the right use when they have to justify their existence too much.  M16's, Tasers, Pistols are generally fine.  When you get into APC's, high power sniper rifles, and a lot of those other items, I begin to wonder.  You are starting to move into "tools only useful for destruction" levels.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #88 on: August 04, 2010, 12:47:19 PM »

http://www.policeny.com/esdtrucks1.html

Nothing new.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #89 on: August 04, 2010, 01:09:10 PM »

http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=205937

You might want to read up on the legal liabilities law enforcement works under. It's not how you imagine.
Logged
Rarick
Guest
« Reply #90 on: August 05, 2010, 04:38:21 AM »

http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/  I all ways read these sites with a lot of "due caution", but the number of incidents........
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2010/08/important-public-service.html This one too.

These actions display a certain mindset, and it is of "don't challenge my authority or else"  In one video the cops repeat the "camera could be a gun, and has been known to happen" so many times it goes from a conversational "we are informing you why we are checking this out"  to a "keep it up and we will claim we thought you had a rigged camera" implication.............

Then there is a video that is so blurred that you cannot tel what is going on, just audio.  Rather than getting a name and number or asking for the tape the police decide to just confiscate the camera? from the filming bystanders?

If law enforcement is acting under legal liabilities, they sure as heck do not act like it.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #91 on: August 05, 2010, 08:25:19 PM »

It's a newsfeed carrying media stories of accusations against law enforcement officers/officers being arrested. That tends to demonstrate that LEOs face legal sanction for misconduct, doesn't it?

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=648&issue_id=72005
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #92 on: August 06, 2010, 11:14:46 AM »

A bit of thread drift here cheesy  Perhaps this would be better on the Citizen-LEO thread on the Martial Arts forum?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #93 on: December 22, 2010, 08:38:07 AM »

Just bringing this to the top to remind us that some Consitutional issues have their own thread.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #94 on: February 05, 2011, 08:12:59 PM »

**Not that Holder's DOJ will do anything about this, if true.....

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/02/the-tuscon-tea-party-needs-your-help-local-authorities-trying-to-silence-them/
Logged
Freki
Power User
***
Posts: 513


« Reply #95 on: February 06, 2011, 06:44:51 AM »

My first reaction is, this is how small government works.  The DA and Sheriff are foolish enough to attempt to intimidate the tea party people and now they have a choice; take it, move, call for help raise a stink and get both of the politicians fired next election. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #96 on: February 06, 2011, 09:42:07 AM »

It's my understanding  Pima county has a large infestation, I mean population of liberals. So what if the DA and Sheriff wage a legal war against the Tea Party there and get re-elected as a result?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #97 on: February 08, 2011, 01:43:00 PM »

I have been reading "A Patrioit's History of the United States" by Schweikart & Allen because it was recommended by Glenn Beck.  I am up to the beginning of the Civil War.  The book is quite good and has really expanded and deepened my understanding and knowledge of our history-- including the States Rights issues.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #98 on: May 30, 2011, 01:28:42 PM »

Inching Closer to States’ RightsPublished: May 29, 2011


 Chief Justice John Roberts is one vote short of moving the Supreme Court to a position so conservative on states’ rights that it would be to the right of the Tea Party’s idea of limited government. That chilling possibility was evident in the court’s recent ruling in the case of Virginia v. Stewart.

The principle at stake dates back to a 1908 case, Ex parte Young, in which the Supreme Court held that federal courts have a paramount role in stopping a state from violating federal law. Despite the 11th Amendment’s protection of a state from being sued in federal court, all state officials must comply with federal law, which the Constitution calls “the supreme Law of the Land.”

States’ rights has been a politically charged concept for even longer. It was a basis for secession and then for years of Southern defiance on segregation. Now it is used as an excuse for rejecting national immigration policy.

Ex parte Young, however, has long stood above legal politics, recognized by conservatives and liberals as defining an essential rule. Indeed, last month the court relied on it in ruling that a federal court could stop a Virginia agency from violating federal statutes requiring it to provide records of mentally ill or disabled patients who had died or been injured while in its care. It was noteworthy that the opinion was by Justice Antonin Scalia.

But there was a dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. joined by Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and an opinion concurring with the majority by Justice Anthony Kennedy joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. To these four justices, there is no longer an inviolable principle that federal courts can stop state officials from violating federal law.

The Roberts view is this: By letting one Virginia agency sue another to stop it from violating federal law, the majority has permitted “precisely what sovereign immunity is supposed to guard against” — the indignity of a federal judge deciding “an internal state dispute.”

The Kennedy view: While the court is right to let the lawsuit go forward, the interest served by doing so must be balanced against “the dignity and respect afforded a state” that is protected by sovereign immunity.

To understand why these opinions are threatening, it’s necessary to set them in a larger context. The Rehnquist court made states’ rights a central concern, especially sovereign immunity. Its vision was resolute, with a series of 5-to-4 votes won by conservatives limiting the power of Congress to subject states to state lawsuits and federal administrative proceedings as well as federal suits.

Yet Chief Justice William Rehnquist didn’t waiver from the view that it is not a breach of sovereign immunity to allow a suit against a state official alleged to be violating federal law, because if he is violating it, he is not acting with the state’s sovereign authority.

The April ruling was the first dealing with the topic by the Roberts court. Justice Kennedy has proposed the same unwarranted balancing before. But it is disquieting news that Chief Justice Roberts seems to endorse it, as if there were a state sovereign interest to balance where Supreme Courts for a century have seen none. That puts Justice Roberts and Justice Alito notably to the right of the Rehnquist court. If the chief justice gets a fifth vote, there will be no apparent check, like the federal law’s supremacy, against gutting Ex parte Young.

« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 05:36:38 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #99 on: May 30, 2011, 04:28:11 PM »

Very funny - I thought it was a parody!

The "chilling possibility" that "Chief Justice John Roberts is one vote short of moving the Supreme Court to a position so conservative on states’ rights that it would be to the right of the Tea Party’s idea of limited government."

NO!  NOT LIMITED GOVERNMENT!!!!  Read into the constitution? by a supreme Court??  Who knew?  grin

Are they not admitting aloud that we now have exactly 5 justices who DON'T see it that way?!

In other words, Presidency 2012 and Senate 2012!  Our constitutional form of limited government is at stake.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!