Monday, May 3, 2010
Many "progressive" opponents of the Arizona immigration law are arguing that the law is unconstitutional because foreign affairs is exclusively the province of the federal government.
That foreign affairs is exclusively the province of the federal government is commonly asserted. But it is a myth – at least if one respects the Constitution’s text and original understanding.
First, the Constitution gives the federal government supreme authority over foreign policy. Congress and the President can pre-empt an issue by exercising one or more of their enumerated powers. If Congress dislikes a state action in that realm, Congress can pass a law overriding it.
If, however, Congress has not acted or acted incompletely, the states have certain reserved powers to act on their own. In other words, the Constitution acknowledges concurrent, although subordinate, state authority over foreign affairs – including immigration.
How do we know this? From both the constitutional text and from the record left by those who debated and ratified the Constitution.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers – that power would endlessly grow…regardless of elections, separation of powers, courts, or other vaunted parts of our system.
Guess what – they were right. For a hundred years, we the people have been suing, and marching, and lobbying, and voting the bums out – but yet…year in and year out, government continues to grow and your liberty continues to diminish – and it doesn’t matter who is the president, or what political party controls congress – the growth of power in the federal government never stops.
The problem we face today is not about personalities or political parties – it’s about power. Until we address the absolute fact that the federal government has too much power, things will never change.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
When Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed HO391 into law on 17 March 2010, the "national" news media circled the wagons and began another assault on State sovereignty. The bill required the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government over insurance mandates in the event national healthcare legislation passed.
The lead AP reporter on the story, John Miller, quoted constitutional "scholar" David Freeman Engstrom of Stanford Law School as stating that the Idaho law would be irrelevant because of the “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution.
In his words, "That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law, so it really doesn’t matter what a state legislature says on this." Now that Barack Obama has signed healthcare legislation into law, almost a dozen States have filed suit against the federal government, with Idaho in the lead. Battle lines have been drawn. Unfortunately, the question of State sovereignty and the true meaning of the “supremacy clause” may be swallowed up in the ensuing debate.
Engstrom’s opinion is held by a majority of constitutional law "scholars," but he is far from correct, and Idaho and the thirty seven other States considering similar legislation have a strong case based on the original intent of the powers of the federal government vis-a-vis the States.
Monday, March 22, 2010
by Brian Roberts
The federal government takeover of the health care industry and your loss of medical freedom only lacks a Presidential signature to become a federal law. We the people know that this cannot stand if America is to remain a free country. Keep your head up, it is time to invoke the 10th and kill this bill and the others soon to follow once and for all.
From here on, resolve will be the key. Not just your resolve, but the resolve of the rest of the citizens in your state. So it’s our responsibility to educate neighbors and make sure the right state representatives are in place.
In order for us to reset this country and return to spending time with our businesses, families and hobbies; we must again in no uncertain terms confirm the revolutionary message that the people are the source of power. The federal government must fear the people, and the state governments are the legal method in which to achieve this goal. Jefferson clarified the goal:
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
Ignore the Feds, Empower the States.
Monday, March 1, 2010
by Michael Boldin
The Tenth Amendment is not about political parties. It’s not about political ideologies. It’s not even about political candidates. It’s about liberty. It was designed to promote your liberty by strictly limiting the powers of the federal government.Over the past year or so, I’ve been interviewed by mainstream media sources literally dozens of times. And whether it’s Fox News, or CNN, or the New York Times, the reporters invariably ask the same question, “What political party do you support?” Each time, I give them the same answer, “The Tenth Amendment Center is a non-partisan think tank that supports the principles of strictly limited constitutional government.”They always have virtually the same follow up question too – “what about you? As the founder of the Center, what’s your political background, what political party do you support?”“None,” I tell them. I don’t know if they believe me, but it’s true.I’m no conservative, and I’m no liberal. I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. And I’m not a green or a libertarian, or a socialist or an anarchist. I’m not even an independent.All I am is me, and all I want is to live free.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
February 12, 2010
This column is archived at
As far as grassroots activism goes, the surge in Tea Parties across America
is one of the more encouraging developments to recently take place. It
reminds me of the "Conservative Revolution" of 1994, when the GOP reclaimed
both the US Senate and House of Representatives. At that time, it had been
over 40 years since the Republican Party controlled both the US House and
Senate. And, between the two, the House victories were the most significant.
Spurred mostly by the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, a host of young,
energetic freshman Republicans marched into Washington, D.C., determined to
return a burgeoning and out-of-control federal leviathan to the
constitutional precepts of limited government. I'm talking about
then-freshman House members such as Helen Chenoweth, Steve Largent, Bob
Barr, Joe Scarborough, Sonny Bono, John Shadegg, J.C. Watts, etc. These
young conservatives went to Washington, D.C., determined to reduce the
growth and size of the federal government.
The vehicle used to transport these young conservatives from grassroots
activism to US House and Senate seats was the highly touted "Contract with
America" (CWA), which was orchestrated by House Speaker-to-be, Newt
Gingrich. The CWA included a promise to the American people that if they
would give the GOP a majority in Congress, they would eliminate up to 5
federal departments--such as the Departments of Energy and Education--and
many federal agencies.
Obviously, not only did the GOP-controlled Congress not eliminate a single
federal department or agency--or even shrink the size of the federal
government at all--it expanded the size and scope of the federal government
at every level. And there is one reason for it: Big Government neocons
posing as champions of conservatism co-opted and destroyed the Conservative
Revolution of 1994.
If one wants to put names to these treasonous wretches (and I do), I'm
talking about charlatans such as Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Anyone who
thinks that Newt Gingrich is a real conservative or that he will do anything
to reduce the size and scope of the federal government needs to speak with
any of those Republican members of the freshman class of 1994. (Sadly, too,
some of the members of that great freshman class went on to become Big
Government toadies themselves. Such is the power of that Putrid Province by
The Tea Parties of 2010 remind me very much of the Conservative Revolution
of 1994. And if the Tea Party Nation is not very careful, they will succumb
to the same fate. The signs of a silent takeover of the movement are already
First of all, the Tea Parties were actually born during the Presidential
campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas in 2007 and 2008. For all intents
and purposes, the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul Revolution were one and the
same. These were (mostly) young people, who were sick and tired of the same
old establishment Republican Party. They were tired of establishment
Republicans selling out the principles of limited government; they were
tired of the US Constitution being ignored and trampled by both Republicans
and Democrats; they were tired of an incessant interventionist US foreign
policy that keeps sending US forces overseas to advance a burgeoning New
World Order (NWO); they were tired of perpetual war; they were tired of the
bank bailouts; they were tired of the Federal Reserve; etc.
I know this because I met--and spoke before--the Tea Party Nation in State
after State as I campaigned for Dr. Paul during the Republican primaries
back in 2008. And I met them again all over America, as I was running as an
Independent candidate for President--with Ron Paul's endorsement, no less. I
was with them in scores of meetings (big and small) from Washington, D.C.,
to Spokane, Washington, and all points in between.
But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and
embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even
Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you're in
danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your
friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost
single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.
Plus, be careful about Sarah Palin and other establishment Republicans.
Palin is currently playing both sides. She is promoting Big Government
neocons such as John McCain on the one hand, and sincere
conservative-libertarians such as Rand Paul on the other hand. But if one
wants a real barometer of Palin's true colors, look no further than her
endorsement of Rick Perry in Texas.
Perry is the quintessential establishment Republican. Perry has been in
office for some 9 years, and what has he done to thwart the NWO in Texas?
Nothing! Perry is even a Bilderberg Group attendee. What has he done for
State sovereignty in Texas? Nothing! In fact, he supports the North American
Union and the NAFTA superhighway. What has he done to resist Obama's
universal health care proposals? Nothing! What has he done to protect the
citizens of Texas against an emerging Police State? Nothing! What has he
done to fight illegal immigration? Nothing!
As a result of both Rick Perry's establishment business-as-usual politics in
Texas and the proliferating grassroots Tea Party movement, counterattacking
establishment politics, a Tea Partier herself has entered the race for Texas
governor. Her name is Debra Medina. As the Tea Party Nation in Texas already
knows, Medina is one of you.
Medina is committed to preserving Texas' independence and sovereignty. She
is opposed to the Patriot Act. She will secure the Texas border. She will
give Texas Vermont-style open carry freedoms for gun owners. She wants to
get rid of unconstitutional property taxes in Texas. She will stop the NAFTA
superhighway. Medina is the real deal.
So, what did Sarah Palin do? She went to Texas and endorsed Rick Perry! I'm
sorry, ladies and gentlemen, playing political games in order to rake in
hundreds of thousands of dollars on the speaking and book-signing circuits
is not what the Tea Parties are all about.
Tea Parties are supposed to be about putting principle over politics,
supporting and defending the US Constitution, supporting limited government
and personal liberty, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, abolishing the
IRS, ending preemptive and pervasive wars, and putting truth and integrity
back into government.
Don't get me wrong; there are things about Sarah Palin that I like. I
especially appreciate her pro-life and pro-Second Amendment stands. I also
appreciate her signing the Alaska State sovereignty resolution while she was
governor. By all indications, she did a good job as Alaska's chief
executive. At the national level, however, she favors the Patriot Act--and
even wants to expand it. She supported the banker bailouts. And when it
comes to foreign policy issues, Palin is just another neocon. Plus, as with
most Republicans at the national level, I think she is clueless about the
NWO. And please remember, it was Mr. New World Order himself, Henry
Kissinger, who vetted Palin on behalf of McCain.
The Tea Party Nation should expect better!
The Nation also needs to be careful about Glenn Beck. He says many of the
right things. He is likeable and charismatic; but he's also dead wrong on a
number of issues--issues that are critical to the Tea Party Nation. He's
dead wrong when he attempts to disparage and impugn Congressman Ron Paul,
saying Dr. Paul is a "crazy, kooky guy." He's dead wrong in supporting the
banker bailouts. He's dead wrong when he supports raising taxes (which he
has done on several occasions). He was dead wrong when he supported the
Patriot Act. He is dead wrong when he viciously attacks the 9/11 victims'
families who demand further information about what happened to their loved
ones on that fateful day. And he is dead wrong when he mocks people such as
Alan Keyes and Joe Farah for demanding that Barack Obama release his birth
certificate--if he indeed has one.
And now I hear that there are some self-professed members of the Tea Party
Nation who are actually running for Congressman Paul's US House seat in
Texas. If this is not a sign that establishment Republicans are hijacking
the Tea Party movement, I don't know what is. Remember, the Tea Party
movement began as a support base for the Ron Paul Revolution back in 2007.
I strongly encourage the Tea Party faithful to read Jane Hamsher's recent
column on this subject:
I say again, be careful, Tea Party Nation. You are being infiltrated. You
are being compromised. You are being neutered. Stick to your principles.
Stick with the Constitution. Keep opposing unconstitutional, preemptive
wars. Keep calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Keep fighting
for less taxes, reduced federal spending, and states' rights. Keep opposing
the Patriot Act and the New World Order. Don't abandon Ron Paul. Be wary of
people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. You don't need "big name"
celebrities to give you credibility. As Samson's strength depended on
keeping his hair uncut, your strength lies in keeping your principles
intact. And unless you want to wind up like the Republican freshmen in 1994,
avoid Newt Gingrich like the plague!
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
(c) Chuck Baldwin
Thursday, January 21, 2010
A federal immigration judge in Memphis is expected to issue a ruling today on the case of a German family that applied for political asylum after suffering persecution from the German government over homeschooling their children.Uwe and Hannelore Romeike fled Germany and sought safe haven within the United States in 2008 after enduring years of punishment from the German government for educating their five children at home in conformity with their Christian values – a legal crime in Germany. "The persecution of homeschoolers in Germany has dramatically intensified," said HSLDA staff attorney Michael P. Donnelly. "They are regularly fined thousands of dollars, threatened with imprisonment, or have the custody of their children taken away simply because they choose to home educate."Although Germany is a modern social democracy, the nation retains statist attitudes formed by the National Socialists during the Third Reich regarding the rights of families. In order to bring about the uniform educational and social formation of the youth by the state, the Jugendamt (Youth Welfare Office) was created, and Germany outlawed homeschooling through a compulsory education law. The laws outlawing homeschooling remained on the books in Germany after the demise of Hitler’s Germany, but German officials for the most part maintained a policy of salutary neglect as late as 2002, when the Education Minister of the time stated the government would not crack down on the homeschooling minority since their children “are generally not lacking in any other respects.”But even then a marked sea-change in the government’s attitude was underway, and by 2006, the succeeding Education Minister K. Horstmann, made clear its policy. He warned homeschooling families: “The education administration in future will also not recognize so-called homeschooling and act in proportionate measure considering the individual case and circumstances.” For Uwe and Hannelore Romeike that meant enduring thousands of euros in crippling fines, threats of prison time, and in October 2006, Jugendamt officials made good on their threat to seize their children and place them in a local state-run school.The persecution faced by the Romeikes, however, is typical of the suffering faced by homeschooling families, some of whom have also had the traumatizing experience of armed police storming their homes at night to take their children away. However, Christian parents have persisted in homeschooling, saying that they want to keep their children free from the corrupting influence of the state-run schools, which they say have been peddling occultism, secular values, and grossly explicit sex education. "We left family members, our home, and a wonderful community in Germany, but the well-being of our children made it necessary," said Uwe Romeike.Hannelore Romeike praised the freedom that they now enjoy to educate their children at home in Tennessee. "The freedom we have to homeschool our children in Tennessee is wonderful,” said Romeike. “We don't have to worry about looking over our shoulder anymore wondering when the youth welfare officials will come or how much money we have to pay in fines.”"If the political asylum application is granted it will be the first time America has ever granted political asylum to Christian homeschoolers fleeing from German persecution," said Donnelly. Donnelly hopes that if the court grants the Romeike’s asylum, it will put more pressure on Germany to back down from its persecution of homeschoolers or face international embarrassment. A positive ruling could also pave the way for other homeschooling families to apply for political asylum in the United States.