TAC Daily Digest http://feed.informer.com/digests/WYPPR38WMR/feeder TAC Daily Digest Respective post owners and feed distributors Fri, 13 Sep 2019 22:13:53 +0000 Feed Informer http://feed.informer.com/ The Supreme Court Is a Biased Referee https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-supreme-court-is-a-biased-referee/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:fe12d513-4a86-78a0-9b47-2215cd53a82b Fri, 23 Oct 2020 20:24:10 +0000 <p>Can you imagine a Dallas Cowboy football player refereeing a game between the Cowboys and the Giants? Well, this is exactly the kind of scenario you get when you ask the Supreme Court to limit the federal government. Going to the federal government to limit the power of the federal government is really bad strategy. [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-supreme-court-is-a-biased-referee/" target="_blank">The Supreme Court Is a Biased Referee</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>Can you imagine a Dallas Cowboy football player refereeing a game between the Cowboys and the Giants?</p> <p>Well, this is exactly the kind of scenario you get when you ask the Supreme Court to limit the federal government.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Going to the federal government to limit the power of the federal government is really bad strategy. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/liberty?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#liberty</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/supremecourt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#supremecourt</a> <a href="https://t.co/YrKHIcxDHx">pic.twitter.com/YrKHIcxDHx</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1319349831693856768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 22, 2020</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/09/28/who-made-the-supreme-court-king/">Who Made the Supreme Court King?</a></p> <p class="entry-title dce-post-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/23/no-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-not-save-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">No, the U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Save Us</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-has-given-supreme-court-judges-nearly-unlimited-power/">The Incorporation Doctrine Has Given the Supreme Court Nearly Unlimited Power</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/21/bigger-problem-underlies-supreme-court-fight/">Bigger Problem Underlies Supreme Court Fight</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-supreme-court-is-a-biased-referee/" target="_blank">The Supreme Court Is a Biased Referee</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Judiciary Maharrey Minute Mike Maharrey The Unconstitutional War in Somalia https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-unconstitutional-war-in-somalia/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:2884ae05-0510-678b-18d8-215f07b3d592 Fri, 23 Oct 2020 17:01:22 +0000 <p>While it might not get the high-profile attention of larger-scale wars &#8211; like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere &#8211; there’s another war being waged in Somalia, and it’s just as unconstitutional as the others. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 23, 2020 Subscribe: Apple &#124; Spotify &#124; Podbean &#124; Google &#124; Stitcher &#124; [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-unconstitutional-war-in-somalia/" target="_blank">The Unconstitutional War in Somalia</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>While it might not get the high-profile attention of larger-scale wars &#8211; like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere &#8211; there’s another war being waged in Somalia, and it’s just as unconstitutional as the others.</p> <p>Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 23, 2020<span id="more-35583"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/WnvVmjFcOJk" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/22/trumps-quiet-little-war-in-somalia/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Trump’s Quiet Little War in Somalia</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2016/may/13/did-you-know-us-special-forces-fighting-in-libya-and-somalia/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Did You Know? US Special Forces Fighting in Libya and Somalia</a></p> <p><a href="https://original.antiwar.com/danny_sjursen/2020/05/15/what-on-earth-is-the-us-doing-by-bombing-somalia/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">What on Earth Is the US Doing by Bombing Somalia?</a></p> <p><a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/23/is-the-u-s-ramping-up-a-secret-war-in-somalia/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Is the U.S. Ramping Up a Secret War in Somalia?</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/world/africa/trump-is-said-to-ease-combat-rules-in-somalia-designed-to-protect-civilians.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Trump Eases Combat Rules in Somalia Intended to Protect Civilians</a></p> <p><a href="https://news.antiwar.com/2019/12/30/us-conducts-record-number-of-strikes-in-somalia-in-2019/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">US Conducts Record Number of Strikes in Somalia in 2019</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-102320:c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=729144831013142" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/cqkzeVA6TUU5/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/779346002" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/a472f493-886c-4900-b517-bb96fb36efdc" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1yNGaBZXoXrJj" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/81b5fbda-8684-4dd1-a29a-789c40aba245" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+7mwerttGg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> LBRY: <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter">https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-unconstitutional-war-in-somalia/" target="_blank">The Unconstitutional War in Somalia</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Current Events Path to Liberty War Powers Barack Obama Donald Trump James Madison Somalia war Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 15:49 While it might not get the high-profile attention of larger-scale wars – like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere – there’s another war being waged in Somalia, and it’s just as unconstitutional as the others. Path to Liberty, While it might not get the high-profile attention of larger-scale wars – like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere – there’s another war being waged in Somalia, and it’s just as unconstitutional as the others. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 23, 2020 Subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Podbean | Google | Stitcher | […] First Medical Marijuana Businesses Open in Missouri https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/first-medical-marijuana-businesses-open-in-missouri/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ec9101df-12ab-eb78-a9bf-a7f9244aac6b Fri, 23 Oct 2020 01:55:00 +0000 <p>ST. LOUIS, Mo. (Oct. 22, 2020) &#8211; Last weekend, the first medical marijuana dispensaries opened in Missouri despite federal prohibition. Retail medical marijuana sales kicked off in the Show-Me State last Saturday with the opening of two dispensaries run by N&#8217;Bliss in the St. Louis area. Another dispensary opened Monday in the Kansas City area. [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/first-medical-marijuana-businesses-open-in-missouri/" target="_blank">First Medical Marijuana Businesses Open in Missouri</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p><strong>ST. LOUIS</strong>, Mo. (Oct. 22, 2020) &#8211; Last weekend, the first medical marijuana dispensaries opened in Missouri despite federal prohibition.<span id="more-35579"></span></p> <p>Retail medical marijuana sales kicked off in the Show-Me State last Saturday with the opening of two dispensaries run by N&#8217;Bliss in the St. Louis area. Another dispensary opened Monday in the Kansas City area.</p> <p>The dispensaries reportedly opened to long lines.</p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/33-states-and-counting-missouri-voters-say-yes-to-medical-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Missouri legalized medical marijuana through a ballot measure</a> in 2018. Under the law, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services was tasked with establishing a licensing structure for the cultivation, testing and sale of medical cannabis. Patients can grow up to six marijuana plants; a licensed caretaker can cultivate up to 18. Doctors can recommend medical cannabis for any condition they see fit; there is no specific list of qualifying disorders.</p> <p>Brenda Dougherty <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/long-lines-missouri-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-open-73683538" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">told ABC News</a> marijuana helps her manage chronic pain.</p> <p>“I don’t want to take any more pills,” she said. “I know this will help. To be quite honest, I have tried it and, yes, it does help.”</p> <p><a href="https://norml.org/blog/2020/10/19/missouri-licensed-medical-cannabis-retailers-now-open-for-business/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According to Marijuana Moment</a>, the state has licensed 192 retailers to date. Over 65,000 Missourians have registered with the state&#8217;s medical access program.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>Despite federal prohibition, Missouri legalized medical marijuana. This removes one layer of law punishing the possession and use of marijuana in the state, even though federal prohibition remains in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Missouri joins a growing number of states increasingly ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 34 states including Missouri allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/first-medical-marijuana-businesses-open-in-missouri/" target="_blank">First Medical Marijuana Businesses Open in Missouri</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Drug War cannabis Marijuana Medical Marijuana Missouri Mike Maharrey Trump’s Quiet Little War in Somalia https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/22/trumps-quiet-little-war-in-somalia/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:2481b254-cfac-c47e-72a1-83101934d7df Fri, 23 Oct 2020 01:34:44 +0000 Through the first seven months in 2020, the U.S. military under Pres. Donald Trump conducted 43 airstrikes in Somalia. That compares to 42 U.S. airstrikes in that country from 2007 to 2017. In other words, in just seven months, the Trump administration bombed Somalia more than Pres. G.W. Bush and Pres. Barack Obama combined. The [&#8230;] <p>Through the first seven months in 2020, the U.S. military under Pres. Donald Trump conducted 43 airstrikes in Somalia. That compares to 42 U.S. airstrikes in that country from 2007 to 2017. In other words, in just seven months, the Trump administration bombed Somalia more than Pres. G.W. Bush and Pres. Barack Obama combined.<span id="more-29577"></span></p> <p>The bombing numbers come from U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and were <a href="https://time.com/5879354/civilian-deaths-airstrikes-somalia/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported by <em>Time Magazine</em></a>.</p> <p>Even as Trump has made headlines about bringing troops home from Afghanistan, he has directed significant escalation in military intervention in Somalia. In 2017, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/world/africa/trump-is-said-to-ease-combat-rules-in-somalia-designed-to-protect-civilians.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">President Trump loosened the rules of engagement</a> for the drone war in that country, and since then the U.S. military has executed a record number of bombing missions. The bombing campaign through the first seven months of the year was a continuation of last year&#8217;s significant spike. In 2019, the U.S. military conducted 63 airstrikes in Somalia, the most in any single year.</p> <p>There are also roughly 650 to 800 U.S. troops on the ground in Somalia.</p> <p>Trump has <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-demands-plan-to-pull-hundreds-of-us-troops-from-somalia/ar-BB19Zg7c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reportedly asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for a troop withdrawal</a> from the country. But as Dave DeCamp pointed out in <a href="https://original.antiwar.com/dave_decamp/2020/10/14/tweets-are-not-enough-its-time-to-end-some-wars-already/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an op-ed published by Antiwar.com</a>, Trump was responsible for sending most of those 650 to 800 troops into the region to begin with.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;If the president successfully withdraws some troops from the country, it would undoubtedly be a good thing, but would it wind down the conflict? U.S. troops are not doing the fighting and dying in Somalia. It’s a war being waged by drones.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>The president has also tweeted about ending the war in Afghanistan in an apparent campaign move to solidify support from anti-interventionist libertarians and paleo-conservatives.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Thank you LIBERTARIANS. We are getting it all done, and FAST! VOTE TRUMP!!! <a href="https://t.co/ai2vTb1V3G">https://t.co/ai2vTb1V3G</a></p> <p>&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1317057909927325700?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2020</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p>But it&#8217;s hard to take Trump&#8217;s sudden anti-war rhetoric seriously when he intentionally escalated the war in Somalia along with bombing campaigns in Afghanistan.</p> <p>As far as ending the war in Afghanistan, Trump oversaw a record number of bombs dropped in in that country just last year. According to <a href="https://www.afcent.af.mil/Portals/82/Documents/Airpower%20summary/(U)%20APPROVED%20Dec%202019%20APS%20Data.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Air Force Central Command data</a>, coalition aircraft (excluding the Afghan Air Force) dropped 7,423 weapons in 2019, slightly higher than the 7,362 dropped in 2018. Keeping up the pace, U.S. warplanes dropped 415 bombs in January and 360 bombs in February, <a href="https://www.afcent.af.mil/Portals/82/Airpower%20Summaries/Feb%202020%20Airpower%20Summary%20FINAL.pd" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">according to CENTCOM</a>. (The last data posted.) That was just under 2019&#8217;s record pace.</p> <p>And despite the lack of American casualties, the U.S. war in Somalia continues to exact a human toll. According to an investigation by Amnesty International, <a href="https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/africom-yet-to-compensate-somali-families-despite-casualty-admissions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">21 civilians were killed</a> in just nine airstrikes and 11 others were injured. According to Airwars and reported by <em>Time</em>, evidence suggests that as many as 15 Somali civilians have been killed by U.S. strikes in 2020 alone.</p> <p>Despite his reputation as a slightly less military interventionist president and some progress toward deescalating some of America&#8217;s foreign military adventurism, Donald Trump continues to run unconstitutional and illegal wars.</p> <p>There is absolutely no constitutional authority for President Trump to bomb Somalia. Congress has not declared war on that country, and the president&#8217;s role as commander-in-chief does not authorize him to initiate offensive military action.</p> <p>Constitutionally, Congress must &#8220;declare war&#8221; before the president can engage in offensive military action. As <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-13-02-0381" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">George Washington wrote in a letter to William Moultrie</a>, “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.”</p> <p>Instead of a declaration of war, Trump, along with Bush and Obama before him, relies on the authorization to use military force (AUMF) passed by Congress in the wake of 9/11 to justify military action across the globe, but this stretches the president&#8217;s constitutional authority far beyond the breaking point.</p> <p>In practice, these resolutions authorize the president to decide <em>if</em> and <em>when</em> he wants to take military action. The AUMF passed after 9/11 to authorize the invasion of Afghanistan remains in effect today. Bush, Obama and Trump have used it to justify their independent decisions to take military action across the globe, including Somalia.</p> <p>But congressional AUMFs simply don’t pass constitutional muster.</p> <p>No constitutional provision authorizes Congress to transfer its delegated powers to another party, including the president. In fact, doing so violates basic legal rules of construction. In contract law, when a principal (the people) delegates power to an agent (the federal government), the agent cannot transfer its delegated power to another party without specific direction within the contract. No such authorization exists in the Constitution. So, Congress can’t legally give the president a blank slate to make decisions about war at his own discretion. Congress must make that call and make it specifically before the initiation of military action.</p> <p>Congress has never authorized military action in Somalia.</p> <p>Some might argue that dropping some bombs in a faraway desert isn&#8217;t really a big deal. But <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/08/24/the-astronomical-price-of-americas-undeclared-wars/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">America&#8217;s unconstitutional wars exact a significant cost</a>. And the price we pay isn&#8217;t just in dollars.</p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-15-02-0423" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">James Madison warned</a> about the dangers of endless wars, calling them a threat to our liberty. We&#8217;re seeing his fears play out before our very eyes.</p> <blockquote><p><em>“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both.<strong> No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare</strong>.” [Emphasis added]</em></p></blockquote> <p>We would be wise to heed Madison&#8217;s warning.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Current Events War Powers afghanistan Constitution Donald Trump Somalia Mike Maharrey Don’t Be Fooled https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/dont-be-fooled/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:07ea4811-9ba8-33a8-5e7c-0974965b3de3 Thu, 22 Oct 2020 23:09:09 +0000 <p>Don&#8217;t be fooled! People are going to tell you that the massive $3.13 trillion deficit the Trump administration ran in fiscal 2020 was just because of the coronavirus. That&#8217;s not true. Pandemic spending simply exacerbated a spending problem that already existed. A lot of partisan hacks like to make excuses for the worst budget deficit [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/dont-be-fooled/" target="_blank">Don't Be Fooled</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>Don&#8217;t be fooled!</p> <p>People are going to tell you that the massive $3.13 trillion deficit the Trump administration ran in fiscal 2020 was just because of the coronavirus. That&#8217;s not true. Pandemic spending simply exacerbated a spending problem that already existed.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">A lot of partisan hacks like to make excuses for the worst budget deficit in history. They&#39;re full of crap. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://t.co/AUTach5qkv">pic.twitter.com/AUTach5qkv</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1319016877679521792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 21, 2020</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/07/the-trump-administration-has-added-more-than-7-trillion-to-national-debt/">The Trump Administration Has Added More Than $7 Trillion to National Debt</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/03/since-9-11-the-governments-answer-to-every-problem-has-been-more-government/">Since 9/11, the Government’s Answer to Every Problem Has Been More Government</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/15/debt-is-the-real-pandemic/">Debt is the Real Pandemic</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/17/the-federal-reserve-the-engine-that-powers-the-most-powerful-government-in-history/">The Federal Reserve: The Engine that Powers the Most Powerful Government in History</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/dont-be-fooled/" target="_blank">Don't Be Fooled</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Debt Maharrey Minute budget deficit Donald Trump government spending National Debt Mike Maharrey Dropping Bombs on Somalia https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/dropping-bombs-on-somalia/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:c47e6557-e0ce-9431-aada-193c54ba854c Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:16:34 +0000 <p>There were more U.S. military airstrikes in Somalia through the first seven months of 2020 than there were through the entirety of the G.W. Bush and Barack Obama presidencies. Yes. Somalia. Over 7 months, the military under @realdonaldtrump did more airstrikes in Somalia than in 16 years of @barackobama and Bush combined. @mmaharrey10th#hesnotantiwar #truth #war [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/dropping-bombs-on-somalia/" target="_blank">Dropping Bombs on Somalia</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>There were more U.S. military airstrikes in Somalia through the first seven months of 2020 than there were through the entirety of the G.W. Bush and Barack Obama presidencies.</p> <p>Yes. Somalia.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Over 7 months, the military under <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realdonaldtrump</a> did more airstrikes in Somalia than in 16 years of <a href="https://twitter.com/BarackObama?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@barackobama</a> and Bush combined. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/hesnotantiwar?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#hesnotantiwar</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/war?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#war</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/peace?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#peace</a> <a href="https://t.co/o4gCYo2uck">pic.twitter.com/o4gCYo2uck</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1318587470326362113?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 20, 2020</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p>Despite Donald Trump&#8217;s reputation as being somewhat more non-interventionist than presidents before him, he&#8217;s still running illegal, unconstitutional wars.</p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/28/james-madison-on-war-as-a-great-threat-to-liberty/">James Madison on War as a Great Threat to Liberty</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/10/the-presidency-and-war-power/">The Presidency and War Power</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/04/09/the-constitution-and-war-powers-not-a-presidential-dictatorship/">The Constitution and War Powers: Not a Presidential Dictatorship</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/08/24/the-astronomical-price-of-americas-undeclared-wars/">The Astronomical Price of America’s Undeclared Wars</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/dropping-bombs-on-somalia/" target="_blank">Dropping Bombs on Somalia</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Maharrey Minute War Powers Donald Trump Somalia Mike Maharrey A Brief History of Court Packing https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/21/a-brief-history-of-court-packing/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:ea8ffbd9-09fa-59c1-72ba-b4deab14a735 Wed, 21 Oct 2020 20:26:19 +0000 Since the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the determination of President Donald Trump to fill her Supreme Court seat before Election Day with the traditionalist Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the concept of court packing has reared its head. The phrase &#8220;court packing&#8221; is a derogatory reference to legislation that alters the number [&#8230;] <p>Since the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the determination of President Donald Trump to fill her Supreme Court seat before Election Day with the traditionalist Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the concept of court packing has reared its head. The phrase &#8220;court packing&#8221; is a derogatory reference to legislation that alters the number of seats on the Supreme Court to alter its perceived ideological makeup.<span id="more-29590"></span></p> <p><span class="column--highlighted-text">The origins of modern court packing are from the depression era when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought to expand the court from nine to 15</span> by adding a new justice for every sitting justice who declined to retire upon reaching his 70th birthday. FDR offered the plan in the spring of 1937, shortly after he was inaugurated to his second term. He had just been reelected in a landslide and was frustrated that much of his legislation had been invalidated by the Supreme Court as beyond the powers of the federal government.</p> <p>FDR&#8217;s stated reasoning was that the court had a &#8220;congestion of cases&#8221; since its nine justices were, he claimed, slow to address the appeals that came before them, and a larger number of justices would make for a more efficient court. Few believed this subterfuge. If nine were too slow, then 15 would be slower.</p> <p>FDR really wanted more pro-New Deal justices who would ratify his radical proposals to centralize, plan and control the economy. Nevertheless, his court packing was immensely unpopular and the plan never made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.</p> <p>But historians have debated whether the proposal actually worked, and here is why. Before FDR&#8217;s plan died, one of the conservative justices, Owen Roberts, had a change of heart on the constitutional scope of the federal government, and he began voting with the court&#8217;s liberal wing to uphold New Deal legislation against constitutional challenges.</p> <p>Though the case in which Roberts broke ranks involved a Washington state minimum wage law — which the court upheld 5 to 4 with Roberts joining the liberals — the hook on which Roberts hung his constitutional hat was the Commerce Clause. That clause gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states.</p> <p>Prior to the New Deal, congressional power over commerce was generally interpreted as James Madison intended it. Congress can regulate — that is, keep regular — the movement of goods over intestate borders among merchants and bar the states from favoring their own merchants.</p> <p>After Roberts&#8217; change of heart, a majority of the court began to view the commerce power in a wildly expansive way, nowhere justified by the language of the Constitution or its original understanding. The new — and regrettably, current — view of Congress&#8217; commerce power is that the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce, even private personal economic behavior too minuscule to measure, behavior that is not commercial in nature and behavior wholly within one state.</p> <p>Roberts&#8217; shift, which he never justified publicly, was coined &#8220;the switch in time that saved nine.&#8221; FDR could not have known that his court packing stunt would have so terrified a conservative justice as to turn him into a big government liberal. But it did.</p> <p>Soon, retirements of justices allowed FDR to fill five vacancies on the court during his 12 years in office, and the landscape of American constitutional law would never be the same.</p> <p>The number of justices on the court is fixed by legislation because the Constitution is silent on this. Though FDR&#8217;s stunt was a misguided effort to treat the court as if it were a super-legislature, it is constitutionally permissible for Congress to alter the number of sitting justices.</p> <p>The only time this was done, it was the Republicans who were the scoundrels. The era was Reconstruction, and the unpopular and impeached-but-acquitted President Andrew Johnson was in the White House.</p> <p>Fearing that Johnson would fill the court with southern sympathizers, the Radical Republicans in Congress &#8220;unpacked&#8221; the court.</p> <p>There were two issues that the Republicans feared would bring judicial invalidation of their legislation. One was Reconstruction and the other was legal tender.</p> <p>Reconstruction placed the Southern states that had joined the Confederacy under a military occupation so draconian that congressional leaders feared the court would invalidate it. Thus they enacted legislation that withdrew the Supreme Court&#8217;s jurisdiction over Reconstruction and reduced the number of justices by attrition from the fluctuating nine and sometimes 10 down to a permanent and fixed seven. The latter prevented Johnson from replacing retiring justices unless the court&#8217;s membership fell to six.</p> <p>The legal tender issue involved Civil War-era legislation that declared paper money — unbacked by gold or silver as the Constitution requires, and just printed by the government — to be lawful legal tender. When the nine-member court invalidated paper money for private debts, the Republicans struck with their unpacking.</p> <p>It worked. After Ulysses S. Grant became president, Congress returned the number of justices to nine, Grant filled the vacancies with his buddies, and the new justices joined the former dissenters in another legal tender case that upheld the use of paper money for private debts.</p> <p>No matter the outcome on Nov. 3, we will soon have a conservative top-heavy Supreme Court. If Joe Biden wins the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, some will try to pack the court by expanding its number. But history teaches that tinkering with the judiciary for political reasons is dangerous to freedom and to longevity in office.</p> <p>The court is not a legislature. Its purpose is to restrain — not to unleash — the president, Congress and popular majorities from infringing upon constitutional rights.</p> <p>Without this anti-democratic structure, who or what will protect us from the tyranny of the majority?</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Current Events Judiciary Court Packing supreme-court Judge Andrew Napolitano The #1 Reason the Supreme Court is a Waste of your Time https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-1-reason-the-supreme-court-is-a-waste-of-your-time/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:97cea55c-939f-9df7-4097-fe4945b96f7e Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:47:38 +0000 <p>Under the monster state we all face today, no matter who sits on the supreme court, the federal government will almost certainly continue to grow in size, scope, and impact &#8211; to the destruction of the Constitution and liberty. A few straightforward facts explain why. Path to Liberty: October 21, 2020 Subscribe: Apple &#124; Spotify [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-1-reason-the-supreme-court-is-a-waste-of-your-time/" target="_blank">The #1 Reason the Supreme Court is a Waste of your Time</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>Under the monster state we all face today, no matter who sits on the supreme court, the federal government will almost certainly continue to grow in size, scope, and impact &#8211; to the destruction of the Constitution and liberty. A few straightforward facts explain why.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: October 21, 2020<span id="more-35572"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/_dW_qissXr4?start=139" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-question-how-many-federal-laws-are-there/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Frequent Reference Question: How Many Federal Laws Are There?</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.kowal.com/?q=How-Many-Federal-Laws-Are-There%3F" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">How Many Federal Laws Are There? No One Knows.</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">List of United States federal legislation</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">GovTrack: Statistics and Historical Comparison</a></p> <p><a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/06/06/how-many-federal-laws-are-there-again-n2009184" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">How Many Federal Laws Are There Again?</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-06/regulation-v43n2-5.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">CATO: Deregulation under Trump</a></p> <p><a href="https://mises.org/library/decriminalize-average-man" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Mises Institute: Decriminalize the Average Man</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">SCOTUS Website: FAQs</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/jadler1969/status/1318217968619323407" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Jonathan Adler on Twitter</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-102120:1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1063004630807721" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/mwrY6DmsqToh/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/777312502" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/c3b985cf-8552-4c35-9b1e-2a379e9e5670" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1zqKVeqnoyLxB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/c61c4e1d-0581-4532-9dff-dfa52016e6f2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> LBRY: <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter">https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-1-reason-the-supreme-court-is-a-waste-of-your-time/" target="_blank">The #1 Reason the Supreme Court is a Waste of your Time</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Judiciary Path to Liberty Strategy Federal Laws Federal Regulations judiciary Supreme court Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 28:10 Under the monster state we all face today, no matter who sits on the supreme court, the federal government will almost certainly continue to grow in size, scope, and impact – to the destruction of the Constitution and liberty. Under the monster state we all face today, no matter who sits on the supreme court, the federal government will almost certainly continue to grow in size, scope, and impact – to the destruction of the Constitution and liberty. A few straightforward facts explain why. Path to Liberty: October 21, 2020 Subscribe: Apple | Spotify […] Judicial Power to Deliberately Prolong a Misinterpretation of the Constitution Does Not Exist https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/judicial-power-to-deliberately-prolong-a-misinterpretation-of-the-constitution-does-not-exist/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ee641998-0f09-a2f1-0fb5-7f3a1a6e6345 Tue, 20 Oct 2020 17:50:13 +0000 <p>During his 2018 confirmation hearing, Justice Brett Kavanaugh correctly explained where the duty to follow judicial precedent comes from: Precedent is not just a judicial policy. Precedent comes right from Article III of the Constitution. Article III refers to the &#8220;judicial power.&#8221; What does that mean? Precedent is rooted right into the Constitution itself….As I see it, [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/judicial-power-to-deliberately-prolong-a-misinterpretation-of-the-constitution-does-not-exist/" target="_blank">Judicial Power to Deliberately Prolong a Misinterpretation of the Constitution Does Not Exist</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>During his 2018 confirmation hearing, Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://reason.com/2018/09/15/kavanaugh-testimony-part-4-on-stare-deci/">correctly explained</a> where the duty to follow judicial precedent comes from:</p> <blockquote><p>Precedent is not just a judicial policy. Precedent comes right from Article III of the Constitution. Article III refers to the &#8220;judicial power.&#8221; What does that mean? Precedent is rooted right into the Constitution itself….As I see it, the system of precedent comes from Article III itself. When Article III refers to the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, establish, to my mind, the phrase judicial power […] what does that entail? […] You look at the meaning—the meaning at the time of judicial power—and you look…one source of that is Federalist 78. It&#8217;s well explained that judges make decisions based on precedent, and precedent, therefore, has constitutional origins and constitutional basis in the text of the Constitution.</p></blockquote> <p>So let’s consider <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp">Federalist 78</a>.  Here’s what Hamilton wrote there:</p> <blockquote><p>To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them.  of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges.</p></blockquote> <p>That last sentence shows Hamilton was speaking about following previous interpretations of “the laws,” without referring to or singling out the Constitution.  It is very possible that Hamilton was focused in Federalist 78 exclusively on statutes, because elsewhere (e.g. in Federalist 80) Hamilton contrasted the laws with the Constitution, when he asked “What equitable causes can grow out of the Constitution and laws of the United States?“  See also Federalist 82: “wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution.”</p> <p>Even putting aside Hamilton’s position on the necessity of following statutory or constitutional precedents, the founders were unanimously clear about constitutional <em>stare decisis</em> in the text of the Constitution itself.  An ancient rule for reading legal texts is the Harmonious-Reading Canon, which says that the clauses in a legal text should be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible, not contradictory.  Justice Kavanaugh was correct that the duty to follow precedents comes from the Judicial Vesting Clause in Article III, Section I.  But that clause should not be interpreted in a way that conflicts with any other clause.  For example, if a non-originalist Supreme Court erroneously interprets the word “press” in the First Amendment to ensure a right to go to the gym and bench &#8220;press&#8221; during a pandemic, but subsequently the Court realizes its mistaken interpretation of the word “press,” then the Court is obligated to adhere to the true meaning of the First Amendment.  Otherwise, they would be inflating the judicial power in a way that conflicts with the First Amendment.  This is why I believe the Court was entirely correct in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/649/"><em>Smith v. Allwright</em></a>, 321 U.S. 649 (1944):</p> <p>[W]e are not unmindful of the desirability of continuity of decision in constitutional questions.  However, when convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment and not upon legislative action this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions. This has long been accepted practice, and this practice has continued to this day.</p> <p>Too bad the Court has seen fit to backtrack from this core principle.  The Court has cited various policy reasons for doing so, but they cannot defeat the constitutional command that relies upon the Harmonious-Reading Canon.  Moreover, those policy reasons are flawed, because the greatest policy danger is that the Court (or some of its members) will be tempted toward casual misinterpretations of the Constitution in the belief that they will be protected in perpetuity by <em>stare decisis</em>.  In the field of constitutional law, where the doctrine of precedent is weak, the necessity of binding down judges can only be accomplished via originalism, and so the argument for applying originalism in constitutional interpretation is even greater than the already-strong case for doing so in statutory interpretation.</p> <p><strong>NOTE</strong>: <em>This post was originally published at <a href="http://originalismblog.typepad.com/">The Originalism Blog</a>, “The Blog of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law,” and is reposted here with permission from the author.</em></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/judicial-power-to-deliberately-prolong-a-misinterpretation-of-the-constitution-does-not-exist/" target="_blank">Judicial Power to Deliberately Prolong a Misinterpretation of the Constitution Does Not Exist</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Alexander Hamilton Judiciary Brett Kavanaugh Federalist 78 Precedent Supreme court Michael D. Ramsey Virginia Becomes 34th State With Legal Medical Marijuana Sales Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/virginia-becomes-34th-state-with-legal-medical-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:5e75cfdc-0b91-cf06-379d-f2fe0852face Tue, 20 Oct 2020 17:40:47 +0000 <p>RICHMOND, Va. (Oct. 20, 2020) &#8211; On Saturday, Virginia became the 34th state with legal medical marijuana sales when ist first dispensary opened despite ongoing federal prohibition. But the commonwealth didn&#8217;t follow the typical path to legalizing medicinal cannabis. Dharma Pharmaceuticals celebrated its grand opening on Saturday. The medical marijuana dispensary is located at an [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/virginia-becomes-34th-state-with-legal-medical-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank">Virginia Becomes 34th State With Legal Medical Marijuana Sales Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p><strong>RICHMOND</strong>, Va. (Oct. 20, 2020) &#8211; On Saturday, Virginia became the 34th state with legal medical marijuana sales when ist first dispensary opened despite ongoing federal prohibition. But the commonwealth didn&#8217;t follow the typical path to legalizing medicinal cannabis.<span id="more-35557"></span></p> <p>Dharma Pharmaceuticals celebrated its grand opening on Saturday. The medical marijuana dispensary is located at an old Bristol mall. <a href="https://wcyb.com/news/local/dharma-pharmaceuticals-first-in-the-commonwealth-to-dispense-medical-marijuana" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According to WCYB</a>, it is one of four pharmaceutical processors approved by the state to produce medical marijuana.</p> <p>Patients receive authorization from a certified medical provider and then register through the state to obtain a medical marijuana card. Individuals issued a card can legally buy, carry, and consumer medical-grade cannabis. But up until Saturday, there was no place to legally buy medicinal cannabis.</p> <p>Lisa Smith was the dispensary&#8217;s first client. Her daughter suffers from Dravet syndrome, a rare form of epilepsy. Smith said cannabis reduced her seizures by as much as 40 percent. &#8220;She went from really just existing, to really living,&#8221; she told WCYB.</p> <p>Virginia&#8217;s medical marijuana program has slowly evolved with incremental regulatory change. Over time, the state broadened the definition of products cannabis patients can obtain and possess. <a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/virginia-governor-signs-marijuana-reform-bill-as-states-first-medical-dispensary-prepares-to-open/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According to Marijuana Moment</a>, &#8220;Organizations like NORML and the Marijuana Policy Project now consider the state to be the 34th in the U.S. to meet its definition for having an effective medical marijuana system.&#8221;</p> <p><strong>FROM MODEST BEGINNINGS</strong></p> <p>Virginia legalized medicinal cannabis oils in 2015, but only for patients suffering from seizures due to intractable epilepsy. Although the program was extremely limited, the passage of that law set the foundation for future action.</p> <p>In 2018, the state expanded the program to allow physicians to recommend medicinal cannabis for patients suffering from any condition.</p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/03/signed-by-the-governor-two-virginia-bills-expand-states-medical-marijuana-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Two 2019 bills</a> were key to opening the door to the state&#8217;s medical marijuana program. One allowed medical marijuana patients to designate another person to act as their registered agents for the purposes of receiving medicinal cannabis. This made it easier for patients in rehabilitation centers, hospice, or those physically unable to drive to obtain medical marijuana. The law also expanded the pool of people authorized to perform marijuana cultivation-related duties. This opened the door to medical marijuana production and sales. The second bill authorized licensed physician assistants and licensed nurse practitioners to issue a written certification for the use of medicinal cannabis.</p> <p>Passage of the 2019 laws represented further expansion of the law. The opening of a bonafide dispensary brings the process to fruition, facilitating a fully-functioning medical marijuana program.</p> <p>The history of medicinal cannabis in Virginia demonstrates an important reality. In the past, some activists have actively opposed limited measures such as the initial 2015 medicinal cannabis law in Virginia arguing that they don’t go far enough. But once a state puts laws in place legalizing cannabis, they tend to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand grows. That creates pressure to further relax state law. Passing bills that take a step forward sets the stage, even if they aren’t perfect. Opening the door clears the way for additional steps. You can’t take the second step before you take the first.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>Despite federal prohibition, Virginia has legalized medical marijuana. Gov. Northam also <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/now-in-effect-virginia-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">signed a bill decriminalizing possession of small amounts of cannabis</a> earlier this year. These moves remove layers of law punishing the possession and use of marijuana in the state, even though federal prohibition remains in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Virginia joins a growing number of states increasingly ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 34 states including Virginia allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/virginia-becomes-34th-state-with-legal-medical-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank">Virginia Becomes 34th State With Legal Medical Marijuana Sales Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Drug War Marijuana Medical Marijuana Virginia War on Drugs Mike Maharrey Trump 2020 Deficit More Than Doubles Obama’s Previous Record https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/19/trump-2020-deficit-more-than-doubles-obamas-previous-record/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:5bc00083-97b5-756f-27eb-1da7ce578307 Tue, 20 Oct 2020 02:41:49 +0000 The fiscal 2020 budget shortfall totaled $3.13 trillion as the Trump administration added another $124.6 billion to the deficit in September, according to the latest Monthly Treasury Statement. That more than doubles the previous record deficit of $1.4 trillion set during the Obama administration at the height of the Great Recession. The fiscal year ended [&#8230;] <p>The fiscal 2020 budget shortfall totaled $3.13 trillion as the Trump administration added another $124.6 billion to the deficit in September, according to <a href="https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0920.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the latest Monthly Treasury Statement</a>.</p> <p>That more than doubles the previous record deficit of $1.4 trillion set during the Obama administration at the height of the Great Recession.<span id="more-29571"></span><span id="more-26096"></span></p> <p>The fiscal year ended on Sept. 30. Revenues were basically flat on the year, falling slightly from $3.46 trillion in FY2019 to $3.42 trillion. But total spending soared, coming in at $6.55 trillion. That compares with $4.45 trillion spent in fiscal 2019.</p> <p>The <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/07/the-trump-administration-has-added-more-than-7-trillion-to-national-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">national debt surged above $27 trillion on Oct. 1</a>, and it has grown by over $7 trillion since President Trump took office. That equals $217,612 of debt for every American taxpayer.</p> <p>When Trump moved into the White House in January 2017, the debt stood at $19.95 trillion. It <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/15/full-speed-to-a-fiscal-cliff-national-debt-hits-22-trillion/">topped $22 trillion in February 2019</a>.  That represented a $2.06 trillion increase in the debt in just over two years. By November 2019, the debt had eclipsed $23 trillion.</p> <p>The <a href="https://www.usdebtclock.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">debt-to-GDP ratio currently stands at 137.21</a> percent. Despite the lack of concern in the mainstream, debt has consequences. Studies have shown that <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/federal-debt-cancer-economic-growth/">a debt to GDP ratio over 90 percent</a><a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/federal-debt-cancer-economic-growth/"> retards economic growth</a> by about 30 percent. This throws cold water on the Republican mantra “we can grow ourselves out of the debt.”</p> <p>A big chunk of the excess spending in FY2020 came courtesy of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act. But the Trump administration was already spending money at a near-record clip before the pandemic. The coronavirus spending simply exacerbated an already out of control federal spending problem.</p> <p>Last year, <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/28/more-excuses-while-feds-run-biggest-deficit-in-seven-years/">the Trump administration ran a $984 billion deficit</a>. At the time, it was the fifth-largest deficit in history. This goes to show that the federal government had a major spending problem before the pandemic. In fact, through the first two months of fiscal 2020, the deficit was already 12 percent over 2019’s huge Obama-like number and was on track to eclipse $1 trillion. Prior to 2020, the U.S. government had only run deficits over $1 trillion four times, all during the Great Recession. We were approaching that number prior to the pandemic, despite what Trump kept calling “<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/01/smoke-and-mirrors-the-greatest-economy-is-built-on-spending-and-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the greatest economy in the history of America</a>.”</p> <p>No matter what happens in the 2020 election, the borrowing and spending will almost certainly continue unabated. The Democrats have proposed another $3 trillion stimulus plan. The Republicans have pushed for a slightly lower number. But <a href="https://schiffgold.com/peters-podcast/peter-schiff-trump-out-democrats-democrats-on-stimulus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">as market analyst Peter Schiff said in a podcast</a>, the Republicans have conceded the argument when it comes to a principled opposition to stimulus. The debate has devolved to how much to spend and where to spend it. “I knew the Republicans lost the argument the minute they accepted the false doctrine that stimulus is good,” Schiff said.</p> <blockquote><p>Basically, were arguing the Democrats’ point that government spending helps the economy, that deficits don’t matter, that printing money doesn’t matter, that we can have all the government we want. We don’t even have to pay for it as long as the Federal Reserve prints the money. So, the minute they accepted the Democrats’ argument, they lost.”</p></blockquote> <p>According to <a href="https://fee.org/articles/new-report-shows-how-congress-has-screwed-over-young-people/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a recent CBO report</a>, on the current trajectory, the size of the national debt will be nearly double the size of the U.S. economy by 2050.</p> <p>It’s easy to simply shrug off the debt. People have been warning about it for years. But it’s not a problem until it is. <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/debt-is-neither-free-nor-irrelevant/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Debt is neither free nor is it irrelevant</a>.</p> <p>At some point, somebody has to pay for all this. As the saying goes – there’s no such thing as a free lunch. We are all on the hook for the massive bill. We (and our children and grandchildren) will pay for this down the road – either through higher taxes or higher inflation – most likely both.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Economy Federal Funding budget deficit Donald Trump Government Spending national debt Mike Maharrey Troops Coming Home from Afghanistan? Depends on Who You Ask. https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/troops-coming-home-from-afghanistan-depends-on-who-you-ask/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:8238951c-a87a-8f2e-3433-5795efb9970f Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:10:17 +0000 <p>There is a lot to cheer about when it comes to most of President Trump&#8217;s foreign policy statements. He regularly tells us he is ending foreign wars and bringing troops home. But do the people who work for him even listen? It seems as soon as the president makes a strong foreign policy statement, one [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/troops-coming-home-from-afghanistan-depends-on-who-you-ask/" target="_blank">Troops Coming Home from Afghanistan? Depends on Who You Ask.</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>There is a lot to cheer about when it comes to most of President Trump&#8217;s foreign policy statements. He regularly tells us he is ending foreign wars and bringing troops home. But do the people who work for him even listen? It seems as soon as the president makes a strong foreign policy statement, one of his appointees grabs a microphone to explain what the president “really meant.”</p> <p>Earlier this month, President Trump Tweeted that, “we should have the small remaining number of our BRAVE Men and Women serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas!”</p> <p>It was a very encouraging statement. But almost immediately his statement was “clarified” – actually refuted – by two Administration officials.</p> <p>First, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Mark Milley, directly contradicted his boss – who also happens to be his Commander-in-Chief &#8211; stating, “It’s a conditions-based plan. We’re continuing to monitor those conditions.”</p> <p>Then President Trump’s National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien told us that the president’s statement was merely an expression of his “desire.” “All presidents, all GIs, want the troops home by Christmas,” he said on Friday.</p> <p>Then Milley and O’Brien launched a war of words against each other over troop withdrawal, with Milley attacking O’Brien’s “clarification” that 2,500 troops would remain in Afghanistan until at least early next year. Milley called it “speculation.”</p> <p>O’Brien fought back, stating that it “has been suggested by some that that’s speculation. I can guarantee you that’s the plan of the President of the United States.”</p> <p>It’s hard to follow!</p> <p>While President Trump’s statement on bringing the troops home is to be applauded, he has a real problem getting his policies implemented by the very people he has hired to do the implementing. It has long been said that “the personnel is the policy,” and we have seen this very clearly in this administration.</p> <p>President Trump ran on a sensible foreign policy, defining “America first” as getting the US out of endless and counterproductive wars. Many, me included, believe this position may have provided his margin of victory. The “peace candidate” nearly always wins.</p> <p>But you cannot pursue an “America first” foreign policy if you put people like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Nikki Haley, Mark Milley, and others in charge of carrying it out. They simply won’t do it. We are seeing that again when it comes to withdrawing our troops from the long and foolish war in Afghanistan.</p> <p>For a president once made famous for uttering the line “you’re fired,” Trump seems unwilling or perhaps unable to dismiss those who actively seek to undermine his policies.</p> <p>There is no need for endless negotiations with the Taliban on what the country might look like or should look like when we get out. The only way to get out of Afghanistan is to just get out of Afghanistan. To just come home. Nineteen years fighting a losing battle to re-shape a country thousands of miles away about which the “experts” know nothing is more than enough.</p> <p>But if there is ever a “danger” of a war coming to a close, Washington’s warmongers are right there trying to stir up another conflict. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said late last week that would like to see huge military spending increases to counter the “threat” of Russia and China.</p> <p>Robbing Middle America to enrich the millionaires in the military-industrial complex seems to be the one issue universally supported in Washington. But it is not at all what the American people want. Will Trump have another chance to pursue an actual “America first” foreign policy? Soon we will know…</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/troops-coming-home-from-afghanistan-depends-on-who-you-ask/" target="_blank">Troops Coming Home from Afghanistan? Depends on Who You Ask.</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Current Events Foreign Policy Afghanistan war Ron Paul Resistance: Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress (Oct. 19, 1765) https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/resistance-resolutions-of-the-stamp-act-congress-oct-19-1765/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:7deee06f-d9da-5df2-f0b7-46e8703e3c7f Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:04:15 +0000 <p>In what was an unprecedented display of colonial unity for the time, thirty-seven delegates from nine colonies gathered in October of 1765 in New York City for the Stamp Act Congress. On the 19th, they issued resolutions opposing taxation without representation &#8211; and in support of the right of trial by jury. Although British officials [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/resistance-resolutions-of-the-stamp-act-congress-oct-19-1765/" target="_blank">Resistance: Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress (Oct. 19, 1765)</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>In what was an unprecedented display of colonial unity for the time, thirty-seven delegates from nine colonies gathered in October of 1765 in New York City for the Stamp Act Congress. On the 19th, they issued resolutions opposing taxation without representation &#8211; and in support of the right of trial by jury. Although British officials dismissed the Congress as an extralegal body, they could not ignore the economic damage done by widespread protests, boycotts and resistance.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: October 19, 2020<span id="more-35560"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/XByuTG77efE?start=67" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/patrick-henry-vs-the-stamp-act/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Patrick Henry vs the Stamp Act</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_Congress" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Wiki: Stamp Act Congress</a></p> <p><a href="https://loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/images/mc0026_enlarge.jpg" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">LOC: Proceedings Image</a></p> <p><a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/resolutions-of-the-stamp-act-congress-2/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-101920:c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=376512523706573" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/asH9K1jyzHj6/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/775306117" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/ec97db69-3a44-4ec5-b522-da3e7f46448f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1RDGlraPBDzxL" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/623ffceb-6db4-4864-96f0-7bf9cad6ccdb" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+HwypaWtMg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> LBRY: <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter">https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/resistance-resolutions-of-the-stamp-act-congress-oct-19-1765/" target="_blank">Resistance: Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress (Oct. 19, 1765)</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video History Path to Liberty Stamp Act John Dickinson Patrick Henry Stamp Act Congress Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 34:15 In what was an unprecedented display of colonial unity for the time, thirty-seven delegates from nine colonies gathered in October of 1765 in New York City for the Stamp Act Congress. On the 19th, they issued resolutions opposing taxation without repre... In what was an unprecedented display of colonial unity for the time, thirty-seven delegates from nine colonies gathered in October of 1765 in New York City for the Stamp Act Congress. On the 19th, they issued resolutions opposing taxation without representation – and in support of the right of trial by jury. Although British officials […] The Destruction of Our Liberties https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-destruction-of-our-liberties/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f8a8aa58-6f93-97f2-c380-1d5267f20838 Mon, 19 Oct 2020 12:40:53 +0000 <p>I ran across an interesting article last week headlined &#8220;How Hatred Came to Dominate American Politics.&#8221; It brought up some pretty good points, particularly regarding the nationalization of American politics. But I think the article swerved pass the biggest cause of the division and hatred in American politics today &#8212; the centralization of power in [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-destruction-of-our-liberties/" target="_blank">The Destruction of Our Liberties</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>I ran across an interesting article last week headlined &#8220;<a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-hatred-negative-partisanship-came-to-dominate-american-politics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">How Hatred Came to Dominate American Politics</a>.&#8221; It brought up some pretty good points, particularly regarding the nationalization of American politics. But I think the article swerved pass the biggest cause of the division and hatred in American politics today &#8212; the centralization of power in Washington D.C.<span id="more-35525"></span></p> <p>The founders called this &#8220;consolidation&#8221; and many warned it was dangerous to liberty.</p> <p>For instance, in <em>Federalist #32</em>, Alexander Hamilton wrote:</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;<em>An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts;</em> <em>and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will.&#8221;</em></p></blockquote> <p>Fisher Aims, a delegate to the Massachusetts ratifying convention, wrote:</p> <blockquote><p><em>&#8220;A consolidation of the States would subvert the new Constitution.&#8221;</em></p></blockquote> <p>Think about it. When virtually every important decision is dictated to some 225 million people from a nearly all-powerful, far-away government, it only makes sense that people are going to fight tooth and nail over who gets to control it. Every election is perceived as a mortal, winner-take-all battle. The victors get to impose their wills on the large minority they vanquish at the ballot box.</p> <p>Patrick Henry warned, &#8220;Consolidation must end in the destruction of our liberties.&#8221;</p> <p>He was right.</p> <p>This is why I rail against <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the incorporation doctrine</a> &#8211; the made up out of thin-air Supreme Court doctrine that allows federal judges to effectively dictate policy at the state or local level. A lot of people think it&#8217;s a good idea because the federal courts can protect us from state or local tyranny.</p> <p>Cute theory. But it almost never works out that way.</p> <p>Why would you trust the most powerful government in the history of the world to protect your liberties? This strategy runs counter the wisdom of the founding generation. And it falls flat with historical scrutiny.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-destruction-of-our-liberties/" target="_blank">The Destruction of Our Liberties</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Big Government Consolidation Decentralization Liberty Patrick Henry Mike Maharrey Brutus No. 1: Antifederalist Warning on Consolidation https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/18/brutus-no-1-antifederalist-warning-on-consolidation/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:63d82988-824b-c74c-9274-c1fe6e3fbf9d Sun, 18 Oct 2020 22:42:48 +0000 If you&#8217;ve been following our work here at the TAC, you&#8217;ll often see articles, videos, quotes, posts &#8211; about the dangers of centralization of power. In fact, it might be one of the most common themes &#8211; both here and from the Founding Generation. That&#8217;s why the Constitution itself was very likely to fail ratification [&#8230;] <p>If you&#8217;ve been following our work here at the TAC, you&#8217;ll often see articles, videos, quotes, posts &#8211; about the dangers of centralization of power.</p> <p>In fact, it might be one of the most common themes &#8211; both here and from the Founding Generation. That&#8217;s why the Constitution itself was very likely to fail ratification until deals were made in places like Massachusetts and elsewhere &#8211; that an amendment would be added in the near future to reaffirm the principle that all powers not expressly delegated would remain with the states or the people.</p> <p>That, of course, became the 10th Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson called &#8220;the foundation of the Constitution.&#8221;</p> <p>Even supporters of ratification regularly acknowledged the dangers of centralization &#8211; what they referred to as &#8220;consolidation.&#8221;</p> <p>James Iredell, who was later nominated to the Supreme Court by Pres. Washington, pointed out that &#8220;The members of the Convention were as much averse to consolidation as any gentleman on this floor.&#8221;</p> <p>Federalist William Davie said, &#8220;If there were any seeds in this Constitution which might, one day, produce a consolidation, it would, sir, with me, be an insuperable objection.&#8221;</p> <p>And even Washington himself warned of consolidation leading to &#8220;a real despotism&#8221; in his famous Farewell Address.</p> <p>There was virtually no debate over the fact that consolidation was dangerous to liberty.  The debate hinged on whether or not the proposed constitution would have a consolidating effect, and to what degree.</p> <p>That&#8217;s where the great Anti-Federalist writer Brutus (who was likely Melancton Smith or John Williams &#8211; or Robert Yates) comes in with a wealth of knowledge.</p> <p>In his first paper &#8211; published today in history on Oct. 18, 1787 &#8211; he spent considerable time explaining WHY consolidation was such a threat.</p> <p>The warnings are just as important today as they were back then.</p> <p>The great concern was that a republic in a large territory would lead to consolidation &#8211; for many reasons. Such as:</p> <p><strong>Representatives</strong>: It&#8217;s impossible to actually have proper representation without succumbing to the dangers of pure democracy</p> <p><strong>Clashing Interests: </strong>&#8220;In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other.&#8221;</p> <p><strong>This leads to standing armies: </strong>&#8220;In despotic governments&#8230;standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate&#8230;. A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens.&#8221;</p> <p><strong>Confidence and Trust:</strong> &#8220;The different parts of so extensive a country could not possibly be made acquainted with the conduct of their representatives, nor be informed of the reasons upon which measures were founded. The consequence will be, they will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass.&#8221;</p> <p><strong>Abuse of Power:</strong> &#8220;In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the controul of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them.&#8221;</p> <p><strong>No Accountability: </strong>&#8220;They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power&#8221;</p> <p><strong>WATCH/LISTEN</strong><br /> I went through each of these important points &#8211; and more &#8211; in a recent episode of the TAC&#8217;s Path to Liberty. It&#8217;s just a 14 minute show &#8211; but packed with a bunch of essential info. At the link below you&#8217;ll find a video and podcast edition &#8211; plus additional links to source documents so you can read and learn even more:</p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-dangers-of-consolidation-brutus-no-1/">https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-dangers-of-consolidation-brutus-no-1/</a></p> <p>At the end of the day, the Federalists won the debate. And whether you agree with them or their opponents on the big picture is less important than learning from the great wisdom that was available on both sides.</p> <p>Today we live under the largest government in the history of the world. That&#8217;s consolidation like no other.</p> <p>My view? We need to give more and more attention to some of these warnings if we ever hope to turn things around for the Constitution and liberty.</p> <p>I hope you enjoy all this information as much as I enjoyed putting it together for you.</p> <p>Thank you for being here with us!</p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;"><em>This article is featured in is today’s Tenther newsletter, which everyone in the nullification movement gets daily or weekly. <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">Be one of them</a> – and <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members">Become a member here</a> to support the TAC.</em></span></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Announcements AntiFederalists Brutus Founding Principles Ratification Debates Brutus No 1 centralization Consolidation Michael Boldin Who’s The Real Enemy Here? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/whos-the-real-enemy-here/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:0e6bf740-468f-914c-38a1-799ab2467bb5 Sat, 17 Oct 2020 16:39:59 +0000 <p>Political theater is set up so as to keep up divided and fighting each other. In the meantime, we miss the real enemy &#8212; the biggest most powerful government in the history of the world. We need to resist the urge to argue over minutia and start focusing on the real threat to our liberties. [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/whos-the-real-enemy-here/" target="_blank">Who's The Real Enemy Here?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>Political theater is set up so as to keep up divided and fighting each other. In the meantime, we miss the real enemy &#8212; the biggest most powerful government in the history of the world.</p> <p>We need to resist the urge to argue over minutia and start focusing on the real threat to our liberties.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Political theater is designed to keep us divided up and fighting each other while we all skip over the fact that we&#39;re living under the largest government in the history of the world. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://t.co/A2yG6bSCOj">pic.twitter.com/A2yG6bSCOj</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1316800918076096514?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 15, 2020</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p class="pt-cv-title"><a class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/14/report-local-law-enforcement-receiving-billions-in-weapons-from-pentagon/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Report: Local Law Enforcement Receiving Billions in Weapons From Pentagon</a></p> <p class="pt-cv-title"><a class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/09/how-the-supreme-court-and-the-incorporation-doctrine-helped-kill-breonna-taylor/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">How the Supreme Court and the Incorporation Doctrine Helped Kill Breonna Taylor</a></p> <p class="pt-cv-title"><a class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/07/the-trump-administration-has-added-more-than-7-trillion-to-national-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Trump Administration Has Added More Than $7 Trillion to National Debt</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/whos-the-real-enemy-here/" target="_blank">Who's The Real Enemy Here?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Big Government Maharrey Minute Breonna Taylor government power Politics Mike Maharrey Signed as Law: Michigan Creates Process to Expunge Some Marijuana Charges https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/signed-as-law-michigan-creates-process-to-expunge-some-marijuana-charges/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:fe7d4747-8465-12f1-6351-a0fb53200eb9 Fri, 16 Oct 2020 17:24:37 +0000 <p>LANSING, Mich. (Oct 16, 2020) – On Monday, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed a bill into law that creates a process to expunge certain marijuana convictions. The new law will allow people to clear their records and take another small step toward nullifying federal marijuana prohibition in effect. Rep. Luke Meerman (R) introduced House Bill [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/signed-as-law-michigan-creates-process-to-expunge-some-marijuana-charges/" target="_blank">Signed as Law: Michigan Creates Process to Expunge Some Marijuana Charges</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p><strong>LANSING</strong>, Mich. (Oct 16, 2020) – On Monday, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed a bill into law that creates a process to expunge certain marijuana convictions. The new law will allow people to clear their records and take another small step toward nullifying federal marijuana prohibition in effect.<span id="more-35548"></span></p> <p>Rep. Luke Meerman (R) introduced House Bill 4982 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/bill/HB4982/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB4982</a>) last year with a large bipartisan coalition of cosponsors. Under the new law, people with misdemeanor marijuana convictions can now petition the court to have the conviction set aside. The law creates a rebuttable presumption that the conviction was based on activity that would not have been a crime if committed after the state legalized marijuana in December 2018. Prosecutors can petition to block expungement, but they must do so within 60 days of the application.</p> <p>In effect, the expungement will clear all public record of the conviction. Law enforcement will still maintain a non-public record. Under the law, people no longer have to disclose the conviction on job applications or other forms. This eliminates the life-long struggle for people with criminal charges on their record face when applying for jobs, housing and other things.</p> <p>On Sept. 23, the Senate approved an amended version of the House bill <a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/rollcall/HB4982/id/979797" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">by a 35-2 vote</a>. The House concurred with the amended version by <a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/rollcall/HB4982/id/979798" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a 98-7 vote</a>. On Oct. 12, Whitmer’s signed the bill and it went into immediate effect.</p> <p>The new law will not only help some people with prior marijuana arrests and convictions on their records get a new start, but it will also further undermine federal marijuana prohibition. As marijuana becomes more accepted and more states simply ignore the feds, the federal government is less able to enforce its unconstitutional laws.</p> <p>In the past, we’ve seen some opposition to marijuana legalization bills because the new laws generally leave those previously charged and convicted unprotected. The enactment of HB4982 demonstrates an important strategic point. Passing bills that take a step forward sets the stage, even if they aren’t perfect. Opening the door clears the way for additional steps. You can’t take the second step before you take the first.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>Despite federal prohibition, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Michigan legalized marijuana by referendum in 2018</a>. This removes a huger layer of laws punishing the possession and use of marijuana in the state, but federal prohibition remains in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Michigan joins a growing number of states increasingly ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/signed-as-law-michigan-creates-process-to-expunge-some-marijuana-charges/" target="_blank">Signed as Law: Michigan Creates Process to Expunge Some Marijuana Charges</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Drug War State Bills cannabis Expungement HB4982 Marijuana Michigan Mike Maharrey This Has Not Worked Out Well For Us https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/this-has-not-worked-out-well-for-us/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ac7c87b2-26c5-74f8-fa5e-694ece6fa97a Fri, 16 Oct 2020 17:13:27 +0000 <p>We have flipped the American constitutional system on its head. We&#39;ve flipped the system of the #Constitution on its head. @mmaharrey10th pic.twitter.com/dIxrZ3reHr &#8212; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) October 14, 2020 James Madison laid out the intent of the Constitution in Federalist #45. The federal government&#8217;s powers were to be &#8220;few and defined.&#8221; Those remaining to the states [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/this-has-not-worked-out-well-for-us/" target="_blank">This Has Not Worked Out Well For Us</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>We have flipped the American constitutional system on its head.<span id="more-35538"></span></p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">We&#39;ve flipped the system of the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Constitution</a> on its head. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://t.co/dIxrZ3reHr">pic.twitter.com/dIxrZ3reHr</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1316446173608120320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2020</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p>James Madison laid out the intent of the Constitution in Federalist #45. The federal government&#8217;s powers were to be &#8220;few and defined.&#8221; Those remaining to the states and the people were to be &#8220;numerous and indefinite.&#8221; The system we have today is the exact opposite.</p> <p>This has not worked out well for our freedoms nor our liberty.</p> <p>For Further Reading</p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/07/27/federalist-45-few-and-defined/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Federalist #45</em></a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/06/walter-williams-state-vs-federal-power/">Walter Williams: State vs Federal Power</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/10/few-and-defined-not-anything-and-everything/">“Few and Defined,” not “Anything and Everything.”</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/23/breaking-the-tenth-amendment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Breaking the Tenth Amendment</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/this-has-not-worked-out-well-for-us/" target="_blank">This Has Not Worked Out Well For Us</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Delegated Powers Maharrey Minute Mike Maharrey 3 Main Pillars of the Monster State https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/3-main-pillars-of-the-monster-state/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4f5a1d46-36b2-5958-260b-1485ba831db7 Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:53:22 +0000 <p>The largest government in the history of the world &#8211; but it didn’t get there overnight. On this episode &#8211; the three main pillars supporting and expanding today’s monster state. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 16, 2020 Subscribe: iTunes &#124; Spotify &#124; Podbean &#124; Google &#124; Stitcher &#124; TuneIn &#124; RSS &#124; More [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/3-main-pillars-of-the-monster-state/" target="_blank">3 Main Pillars of the Monster State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>The largest government in the history of the world &#8211; but it didn’t get there overnight. On this episode &#8211; the three main pillars supporting and expanding today’s monster state.</p> <p>Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 16, 2020 <span id="more-35550"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/QKCYpbpqRZU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">State of the Nullification Movement Report</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/the-supreme-court-issues-opinions-not-law/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Supreme Court Issues Opinions, not Law</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/an-early-bill-of-rights-declaration-and-resolves-of-the-first-continental-congress/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">An Early Bill of Rights: Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/unconstitutional-government-power-and-the-problem-of-obedience/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Unconstitutional Government Power and the Problem of Obedience</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-101620:2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=724457621747527" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/J6QHSGCZhXAK/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/772167923" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/3f575fa0-7a08-4589-b7e9-3c8fc45bcd1c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1lDxLynYPWQKm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/780008d5-0302-4987-a505-8f196bf5baea" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+V5w4ru5Gg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CGaWhLzgZXD/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> LBRY: <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter">https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/3-main-pillars-of-the-monster-state/" target="_blank">3 Main Pillars of the Monster State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Federal Power Path to Liberty Encroachment Human Action Judicial Supremacy Usurpation Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 11:59 The largest government in the history of the world – but it didn’t get there overnight. On this episode – the three main pillars supporting and expanding today’s monster state. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 16, The largest government in the history of the world – but it didn’t get there overnight. On this episode – the three main pillars supporting and expanding today’s monster state. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 16, 2020 Subscribe: iTunes | Spotify | Podbean | Google | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS | More […] The Nature of the Federal Government https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/16/the-nature-of-the-federal-government/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:4cdea660-5e6a-3937-36b7-a1a3b6792c6e Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:30:41 +0000 We have flipped the American constitutional system on its head. It operates exactly the opposite of how the supporters of the Constitution said it would. So, what type of government did the Constitution create? Is it powerful or weak? Is it expansive or limited? How much authority does it wield? Can it act in any [&#8230;] <p>We have flipped the American constitutional system on its head. It operates exactly the opposite of how the supporters of the Constitution said it would.</p> <p>So, what type of government did the Constitution create?</p> <p>Is it powerful or weak? Is it expansive or limited? How much authority does it wield? Can it act in any situation, or does it have a limited sphere? How you answer these questions will shape your view of American government and guide your understanding of every clause in the Constitution.</p> <p>During the Philadelphia Convention, many framers favored a strong national government. In fact, James Madison even proposed a federal veto on state laws. But as the convention wore on, delegates voted down proposals to create a centralized government one by one – including Madison’s federal veto. The Constitution that emerged from the Convention created a general government with a few, defined, enumerated powers.</p> <p>The Philadelphia Convention reveals much about the framers’ intent, but we find the true meaning of the Constitution in the ratification process. It was there that the people consented to the new system. By studying the debates, we come to understand exactly what the delegates representing the people thought they were consenting to.</p> <p>The voters in each state were an important part of the ratification process. They elected representatives to conventions convened to approve or reject the document. The debates in these state conventions illuminate their understanding of the Constitution at the time and thus reveal the original meaning, as I discussed in chapter one. As you’ll recall, James Madison affirmed this view of constitutional interpretation in a letter to Henry Lee.</p> <blockquote><p><em>“I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers.”</em></p></blockquote> <p>Many Americans misconstrue the ratification debates, assuming those favoring the Constitution (the federalists) advocated for a strong, central government, while opponents (anti-federalists) wanted a weaker general government. In fact, virtually everybody agreed (at least publicly) that the Constitution was intended to create a limited federal authority, leaving most power to the states. The actual debate revolved around whether the Constitution, as written, would create such a limited government. The federalists insisted that it would, while anti-federalist expressed deep fear that it would not.</p> <p>The Federalist Papers are the best-known source of federalist arguments. Published in New York newspapers, these essays, written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, laid out key arguments to support ratification and give us a strong sense of how proponents “sold” the Constitution to a skeptical public. Think of it like the sticker taped inside the window of a used car.</p> <p>Madison made the clearest case for the Constitution’s limited nature in <em>Federalist # 45</em>.</p> <blockquote><p><em>“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are <strong>few and defined</strong>. Those which are to remain in the State governments are <strong>numerous and indefinite</strong>. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which the last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.” </em>[Emphasis added]</p></blockquote> <p>While the <em>Federalist Papers</em> shed valuable light on arguments used to “sell” the Constitution to the people, they weren’t nearly as influential at the time as you might think based on their popularity today. In fact, the Federalist essays received only limited circulation outside New York. The records of the ratification debates are more important, and provide us with a deeper and more illuminating understanding of the original meaning as it was explained to reluctant convention delegates.</p> <p>Without exception, these debates record supporters arguing vehemently that anti-federalist fears of a powerful national government were unfounded. It was on this basis that the Constitution was ratified. Had the people believed that the federal government would morph into the all-powerful entity we live under today, they would have soundly rejected its ratification.</p> <p>James Wilson of Pennsylvania set the stage in his famous <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/06/james-wilsons-state-house-yard-speech-a-primer/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">State House Yard speech on Oct. 6, 1787</a>. Anticipating objections to expanding power of the general government, he asserted that Congress would have very limited authority, circumscribed by the specific delegated powers. He distinguished between the state constitutions, which empowered government to do anything not prohibited and the new U.S. Constitution, which limited the government’s power to only those objects specified.</p> <blockquote><p><em>“It will be proper &#8230; to mark the leading discrimination between the State constitutions and the constitution of the United States. When the people established the powers of legislation under their separate governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve; and therefore upon every question respecting the jurisdiction of the House of Assembly, if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdiction is efficient and complete. But in delegating federal powers, another criterion was necessarily introduced, and the congressional power is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union. Hence, it is evident, that in the former case everything which is not reserved is given; but in the latter the reverse of the proposition prevails, and everything which is not given is reserved.” </em></p></blockquote> <p>Wilson’s speech carries even more weight when you realize he was an ardent nationalist and yearned for a powerful central government that would effectively rule over the states. He understood this view would doom ratification and emphasized the limited nature of the general government under the proposed Constitution.</p> <p>The people, speaking through representatives they elected to their state ratifying conventions, ultimately accepted this view and ratified on that basis.</p> <p>Fast-forward 232 years. The government looks nothing like the one Madison and Wilson described. In fact, it looks exactly oppositive.</p> <p>The federal government&#8217;s powers are numerous and indefinite. It claims authority over virtually every aspect of our lives, from dictating what kind of lightbulbs we can screw into our fixtures to how much water can flush down our toilets. Meanwhile, the states have effectively been relegated to the role of a servant, left with very few powers at all.</p> <p>The American system is flipped on its head. We need to flip it back.</p> <p>This article was adapted from Mike Maharrey&#8217;s book <em>Constitution Owner&#8217;s Manual: The Real Constitution the Politicians Don&#8217;t Want You to Know About</em>. You can get more information about the book at <a href="https://www.michaelmaharrey.com/books-by-michael/constitution-owners-manual/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ConstitutionOwnersManual.com</a>.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Constitution Founding Principles Ratification delegated-powers James Madison James Wilson Mike Maharrey Signed As Law: Vermont Bans Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/signed-as-law-vermont-bans-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:1f1027fe-7435-d3ec-52c8-5da630338bdd Thu, 15 Oct 2020 20:24:20 +0000 <p>MONTPELIER, Vt. (Oct. 15, 2020) &#8211; Last week, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed a bill into law that bans police from using facial recognition technology. The growing movement to prohibit the use of facial recognition at the state and local levels could hinder the operation of a growing national facial recognition network. Sen. Jeanette White [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/signed-as-law-vermont-bans-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/" target="_blank">Signed As Law: Vermont Bans Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p><strong>MONTPELIER</strong>, Vt. (Oct. 15, 2020) &#8211; Last week, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed a bill into law that bans police from using facial recognition technology. The growing movement to prohibit the use of facial recognition at the state and local levels could hinder the operation of a growing national facial recognition network.<span id="more-35547"></span></p> <p>Sen. Jeanette White (D-Putney) introduced Senate Bill 124 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/VT/bill/S0124/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">S.124</a>) back in February. The legislation makes a number of reforms relating to law enforcement, including a complete ban on the use of facial recognition technology unless it &#8220;is authorized by an enactment of the General Assembly.&#8221; The law prohibits the use of facial recognition technology and the use of any information acquired through facial recognition. It does make an exception if the use of facial recognition is allowable under the state law regulating police drones &#8211; permissible only with a warrant.</p> <p>The Senate passed S.124 in June by <a href="https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/roll-call/2020/208" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a 28-0 vote</a>. The House approved the measure with some amendments on Sept. 22. The Senate concurred with the amendments and Gov. Scott signed the bill into law on Oct. 7.</p> <p>The new law establishes the strongest limits on the police use of facial recognition in the country. ACLU of Vermont Advocacy Director Falko Schilling <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-admin/post-new.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">called it</a> &#8220;a historic win for Vermonters’ right to privacy.&#8221;</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;By enacting the broadest outright ban on police use of facial recognition in the country, Vermont has taken the lead in protecting residents’ civil liberties from this invasive and inaccurate technology.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>A <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recent report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/31/local-state-and-federal-law-enforcement-partnering-to-create-massive-facial-recognition-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a massive, nationwide facial recognition system</a> for years.</p> <p>The FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.</p> <p>In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at <a href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">perpetuallineup.org</a>. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.</p> <blockquote><p>“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/study-lack-of-face-recognition-oversight-threatens-privacy-of-millions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clare Garvie said</a>. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”</p></blockquote> <p>There are <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">many technical and legal problems</a> with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8wa8/amazons-facial-recognition-misidentified-1-in-5-california-lawmakers-as-criminals" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature</a> as people in a database of arrest photos.</p> <p>With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.</p> <p>In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras</a> equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of state laws and local ordinances banning and limiting facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/signed-as-law-vermont-bans-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/" target="_blank">Signed As Law: Vermont Bans Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Facial Recognition State Bills facial recognition Privacy S124 surveillance Vermont Mike Maharrey Stop Making Excuses! https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/stop-making-excuses/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:932bbc97-dc8f-cf6d-e919-12b147c9a898 Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:29:29 +0000 <p>I&#8217;m sick and tired of conservatives and people who claim to want limited government making excuses for Donald Trump. Your standard for &#34;your guy&#34; should be the #constitution, not some other crappy politician. @mmaharrey10th pic.twitter.com/2Y4jrQqLiT &#8212; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) October 13, 2020 It happens all the time. I point out something bad the president has done [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/stop-making-excuses/" target="_blank">Stop Making Excuses!</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>I&#8217;m sick and tired of conservatives and people who claim to want limited government making excuses for Donald Trump.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Your standard for &quot;your guy&quot; should be the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a>, not some other crappy politician. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://t.co/2Y4jrQqLiT">pic.twitter.com/2Y4jrQqLiT</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1316147120357867520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 13, 2020</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p>It happens all the time. I point out something bad the president has done and in response, I get, &#8220;What about Obama?&#8221; or &#8220;Hillary would have been worse!&#8221;</p> <p>Yes. Obama and Hillary are awful. But you shouldn&#8217;t be comparing your guy with some other crappy politicians. Compare them with your principles and hold them to them.</p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/07/the-trump-administration-has-added-more-than-7-trillion-to-national-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Trump Administration Has Added More Than $7 trillion to National Debt</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/11/trumps-new-and-improved-obamacare/">Trump’s “New and Improved” Obamacare</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/24/report-trump-ramps-up-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control-for-third-straight-year/">Report: Trump Ramps Up Enforcement of Federal Gun Control for Third Straight Year</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/stop-making-excuses/" target="_blank">Stop Making Excuses!</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Government Maharrey Minute Donald Trump limited government National Debt Mike Maharrey To the Governor: Virginia Bill to Limit Federal Militarization of Police https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/to-the-governor-virginia-bill-to-limit-federal-militarization-of-police/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:5b9f6d9c-8fd4-795e-6b87-1a185d3fd797 Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:04:18 +0000 <p>RICHMOND, Va. (Oct 15, 2020) – Yesterday, the Virginia House and Senate gave final approval to a bill that would put limits on state and local law enforcement agencies’ ability to acquire certain military equipment from federal programs. Del. Dan Helmer (D-Fairfax Station) introduced House Bill 5049 (HB5049) on Aug. 17. The legislation would prohibit [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/to-the-governor-virginia-bill-to-limit-federal-militarization-of-police/" target="_blank">To the Governor: Virginia Bill to Limit Federal Militarization of Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p><strong>RICHMOND</strong>, Va. (Oct 15, 2020) – Yesterday, the Virginia House and Senate gave final approval to a bill that would put limits on state and local law enforcement agencies’ ability to acquire certain military equipment from federal programs.<span id="more-35542"></span></p> <p>Del. Dan Helmer (D-Fairfax Station) introduced House Bill 5049 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/HB5049/2020/X1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB5049</a>) on Aug. 17. The legislation would prohibit a state or local law enforcement agency from acquiring or purchasing the following military equipment.</p> <p><i>(i) weaponized unmanned aerial vehicles </i><br /> <i>(ii) aircraft that are configured for combat or are combat-coded and have no established commercial flight application </i><br /> <i>(iii) grenades or similar explosives or grenade launchers from a surplus program operated by the federal government</i><br /> <i>(iv) armored multi-wheeled vehicles that are mine-resistant, ambush-protected, and configured for combat, also known as MRAPs, from a surplus program operated by the federal government </i><br /> <i>(v) bayonets </i><br /> <i>(vi) firearms of .50 caliber or higher </i><br /> <i>(vii) ammunition of .50 caliber or higher</i><br /> <i>(viii) weaponized tracked armored vehicles.</i></p> <p>The proposed law specifies that it does not &#8220;restrict the acquisition or purchase of an armored high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle, also known as HMMWVs.&#8221;</p> <p>The legislation applies both to the well-known 1033 program, along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government, as well as federal programs that fund the acquisition of surplus military equipment.</p> <p>HB5049 requires any agency in possession of prohibited items to cease using them unless they obtain a waiver from the Criminal Justice Services Board.</p> <p>The House and Senate initially passed different versions of HB5049. The Senate stripped out important transparency provisions that would have required law enforcement agencies to publish a public notice within 14 days of requesting any allowable military equipment from a federal program. The legislation went to a conference committee that presented a compromise version. On Oct. 14, the House gave final approval by a 54-42 vote and the Senate approved the measure 21-17. The bill now goes to Gov. Ralph Northam&#8217;s desk for his consideration.</p> <p>While the enactment of HB5049 wouldn’t end the militarization of local cops, even as amended, it would keep some dangerous weapons out of the hands of police officers and set the stage for further limits in the future.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL SURPLUS AND GRANT MONEY</strong></p> <p>Through the federal 1033 Program, local police departments procure military-grade weapons. Police can also get military equipment through the Department of Homeland Security via the (DHS) “Homeland Security Grant Program.” The DHS <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/04/12/dhs-announces-funding-opportunity-fiscal-year-2019-preparedness-grants#:~:text=Homeland%20Security%20Grant%20Program%20(HSGP,of%20terrorism%20and%20other%20threats." data-et-has-event-already="true">doles out over $1 billion in counterterrorism funds</a> to state and local police each year. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon-funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”</p> <p>In August 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/28/executive-order-takes-window-dressing-off-police-militarization-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gave a push to local police militarization</a>. Trump’s action rescinded an <a href="https://www.bja.gov/publications/LEEWG_Report_Final.pdf">Obama-era policy </a>meant to provide greater transparency and oversight around the Department of Defense 1033 program and other federal resources that provide military weapons to local police.</p> <p>Passage of HB5049 would limit Virginia’s participation in federal police militarization programs and create a framework of transparency. It would also create a foundation for the public to stop their local police from obtaining this type of gear.</p> <p><strong>COMMAND AND CONTROL</strong></p> <p>Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the founders. They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’</p> <p>In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”</p> <p>By making it more difficult for local police to get this military-grade gear and surveillance technology, and ensuring they can’t do it in secret, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships. Passage of HB5049 would take a first step toward limiting police militarization in Virginia.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>If the bill is transmitted to Gov Northam prior to seven days before the special session ends, he will have seven days to sign or veto the bill. If it goes to his desk within 7 days of adjournment, he will have 30 days to act. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/to-the-governor-virginia-bill-to-limit-federal-militarization-of-police/" target="_blank">To the Governor: Virginia Bill to Limit Federal Militarization of Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Police State Bills Mike Maharrey Report: Local Law Enforcement Receiving Billions in Weapons From Pentagon https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/14/report-local-law-enforcement-receiving-billions-in-weapons-from-pentagon/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:eb09323b-5ea0-9df8-eccc-c1632cb7e937 Thu, 15 Oct 2020 01:50:03 +0000 “They will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” &#8211; George Washington, Farewell Address (1796) Barney Fife carried one bullet in his pocket. Back at the jailhouse, he and Sheriff Andy Taylor [&#8230;] <p><em>“They will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”</em><br /> &#8211; George Washington, Farewell Address (1796)</p> <p>Barney Fife carried one bullet in his pocket. Back at the jailhouse, he and Sheriff Andy Taylor had one rifle each.</p> <p>Today, a small-town police department such as that in Mayberry would likely own an armored personnel vehicle and military-grade weapons that would compare to any arsenal at any Army post.</p> <p>A new report published by Open the Books reveals the shocking proliferation in local law-enforcement departments of combat materiel produced for use by the U.S. military.</p> <p>As reported in <em>Forbes</em>:</p> <blockquote><p>Local law enforcement agencies have since 1993 received billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment including mine resistant vehicles, armored trucks, helicopters, M16’s and M14’s, infrared goggles, grenade launchers, and airplanes. The gear transfers are part of the Pentagon authorization known as Program 1033.</p> <p>Surprisingly, California’s police departments — a state with some of the strictest gun laws — procured the most military weaponry from the Pentagon.</p> <p>California ($153.1 million) edged out Texas ($144 million), Tennessee ($133.7 million), Florida ($105.6 million), Arizona ($93.9 million), Alabama ($88.7 million), and South Carolina ($76.3 million) in the receipt of military surplus equipment.</p></blockquote> <p>You may look at that list and imagine that Los Angeles and Miami and Houston probably could make use of military weapons, vehicles, and clothing.</p> <p>Would you feel the same about small-town police departments getting gear made for the battlefield? Consider this from the Open the Books report:</p> <blockquote><p>Even thinly populated counties in California procured mine resistant vehicles. For example, Amador County (pop. 38,000) in the Sierra Nevada mountains received two ($1.3 million value).</p> <p>In Texas, the Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District police received 60 bayonets-knives ($4,236 value) and Granite Sholas police procured ten more. Please explain the policing purpose of a bayonet — in a school district? Our request for comment was ignored.</p> <p>In Wyoming, the Campbell County sheriff’s Office (pop. 46,341) received $1.5 million in gear including two mine-resistant vehicles, an armored truck, and 17 M14 rifles.</p> <p>In 2016, citizen outrage helped shut down a local police department in Illinois after our oversight reporting at Forbes revealed that the police in London Mills (pop. 381) acquired $201,445 in military equipment including rifles, generators, trucks, and Humvees.</p></blockquote> <p>Bayonettes for school resource officers?</p> <p>Humvees for police in a town with a population below 400?</p> <p>Mine-resistant vehicles in the small towns of the mountains of California?</p> <p>Is there a need for such things, or is the supply creating the demand?</p> <p>In an interview conducted for an earlier article on this subject, Jim Fitzgerald of the John Birch Society said there is “virtually no use” for the military-grade equipment being obtained by local law enforcement.</p> <p>“The only reason to have this equipment is to use it,” Fitzgerald said.</p> <p>From the arsenal to the attitude, Fitzgerald’s statement seems prophetic as police are acting less like public servants and more like special forces.</p> <p>In an essay published in the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> last August, Radley Balko, author of <em>Rise of the Warrior Cop</em>, presented chilling and convincing evidence of the blurring of the line between cop and soldier:</p> <blockquote><p>Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment — from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers — American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop — armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.</p></blockquote> <p>Everyone has heard of stories of police storming a house wearing masks covering their faces, dressed in military special forces-style black uniforms and battle helmets. They bust down the door using a battering ram, then rush the occupants, seizing and breaking one camera and preventing another from recording the remarkable scene.</p> <p>What was the heinous and violent crime for which the intended target of the raid was charged? Murder? Rape?</p> <p>Credit-card fraud.</p> <p>Again, sounds like Jim Fitzgerald was right on target with his “if they have it, they’ll use it” prediction.</p> <p>And, the Open the Books report reveals that more and more local law-enforcement agencies are happily taking the Pentagon’s hand-me-downs.</p> <p>Regarding the armored vehicles such as the one in the example above, police have taken possession of 284 such vehicles worth over $24 million under the Pentagon’s 1033 program.</p> <p>There is something unseemly about this stockpile of tools and technology being gifted to police departments. Consider this highlight from the Open the Books report: “Transfers included night-vision sights, sniper scopes, binoculars, telescopes, and goggles (131,358 items, $42 million value); mine detecting sets, marking kits, and probes (230 items, $599,341 million value).”</p> <p>Many of you may be thinking that while there are some such examples of unnecessary use, there’s no real harm in giving police the Pentagon’s weapons.</p> <p>Echoing General George Washington’s warning in his Farewell Address, Radley Balko connects the menace of the martial police with the decline in liberty and a disintegration of legal boundaries between sheriffs and generals:</p> <p>Americans have long been wary of using the military for domestic policing. Concerns about potential abuse date back to the creation of the Constitution, when the founders worried about standing armies and the intimidation of the people at large by an overzealous executive, who might choose to follow the unhappy precedents set by Europe’s emperors and monarchs.</p> <p>Washington and Balko are but two of the men who’ve raised the warning voice regarding the danger from a more militarized society.</p> <p>During the Virginia ratifying convention, James Madison described a standing army as the “greatest mischief that can happen.” His colleague and fellow delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, George Mason, put a finer point on it:</p> <blockquote><p>No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence [sic], — yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed, — what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!</p></blockquote> <p>In commenting on William Blackstone’s <em>Commentaries on the Laws of England</em>, founding era jurist St. George Tucker speaks as if he foresaw our day and the fatal combination of an increasingly militarized police force and the disarmament of civilians.</p> <p>“Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction,” Tucker warned.</p> <p>Finally, there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to dole out the billions of dollars in war weapons and machines that are behind the militarization of the police.</p> <p>The solution, then, to the military tactics, training, tools, and technology being deployed by local law enforcement could be the application of the 10th Amendment.</p> <p>The 10th Amendment mandates that if the power isn’t granted to the federal government in the Constitution, then authority over that area remains with the states and the people.</p> <p>Naturally, the bureaucrats in charge of keeping the cash flowing from the Department of Defense to police and sheriffs want to keep the spigot open.</p> <p>This transfer of technology and materiel will separate the police from the people they serve and make them dependent on their would-be bosses in Washington, D.C.</p> <p>Police, unless the people stand up and interpose, will become nothing less than federal security agents sworn not to protect and to serve their neighbors, but to protect the prerogatives of politicians.</p> <p><strong>EDITOR’S NOTE:</strong> This article was originally published at <em><a href="https://thenewamerican.com/report-local-law-enforcement-receiving-billions-in-weapons-from-pentagon/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The New American Magazine</a></em> and reposted here with permission from the author.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Federal Funding Police 1033 Program federal-funding Militarization Police State Joe Wolverton, II An Early Bill of Rights: Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/an-early-bill-of-rights-declaration-and-resolves-of-the-first-continental-congress/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f1c401fd-feb4-dcac-b692-b01f4893f63b Wed, 14 Oct 2020 17:53:44 +0000 <p>On October 14, 1774, the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress was adopted in response to the Intolerable Acts passed by Parliament. It not only set the stage for further actions in the next 2 years, but also included principles and rights that can be found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/an-early-bill-of-rights-declaration-and-resolves-of-the-first-continental-congress/" target="_blank">An Early Bill of Rights: Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>On October 14, 1774, the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress was adopted in response to the Intolerable Acts passed by Parliament. It not only set the stage for further actions in the next 2 years, but also included principles and rights that can be found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights ratified years later.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: October 14, 2020<span id="more-35539"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/O1nzd6Doi9k?start=44" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">State of the Nullification Movement Report</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-revolution/the-american-revolution/a/the-intolerable-acts-and-the-first-continental-congress" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Radical Boston and the Intolerable Acts</a></p> <p><a href="https://classroom.monticello.org/media-item/declaration-and-resolves-of-the-first-continental-congress/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Declaration And Resolves Of The First Continental Congress</a></p> <p><a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-the-first-continental-congress-concludes" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">On this day: The First Continental Congress concludes</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_and_Resolves_of_the_First_Continental_Congress" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Wiki: Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1774-declaration-and-resolves-of-the-1st-continental-congress" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Full Text: Declaration and Resolves of the 1st Continental Congress</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/free-and-independent-states-going-beyond-the-declaration/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Free and Independent States! Going Beyond the Declaration</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-101420:8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=681850949202403" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/IUZ6XSuzB8Hm/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/770205858" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/b831d9d2-d8ee-456e-a653-0e13b220e297" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1MnGndkEDQwxO" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+nt_pyE5MR" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> LBRY: <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter">https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/an-early-bill-of-rights-declaration-and-resolves-of-the-first-continental-congress/" target="_blank">An Early Bill of Rights: Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> American Revolution Audio/Video Founding Principles History Path to Liberty Coercive Acts Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress First Continental Congress Intolerable Acts Today in History Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 29:40 On October 14, 1774, the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress was adopted in response to the Intolerable Acts passed by Parliament. It not only set the stage for further actions in the next 2 years, On October 14, 1774, the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress was adopted in response to the Intolerable Acts passed by Parliament. It not only set the stage for further actions in the next 2 years, but also included principles and rights that can be found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights […] Are You A Partisan Hack? Or a Presidential Fan-Boy? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/are-you-a-partisan-hack-or-a-presidential-fan-boy/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:64245b87-2e51-f7b9-9142-f725be51d3c6 Wed, 14 Oct 2020 10:25:15 +0000 <p>Why do conservatives and people who claim to care about constitutionally limited government make excuses for Donald Trump? It happens all the time. The other day, I posted an article highlighting the fact that the Trump administration has increased the national debt by over $7 trillion. The very first comment I got when I posted [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/are-you-a-partisan-hack-or-a-presidential-fan-boy/" target="_blank">Are You A Partisan Hack? Or a Presidential Fan-Boy?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>Why do conservatives and people who claim to care about constitutionally limited government make excuses for Donald Trump?<span id="more-35532"></span></p> <p>It happens all the time. The other day, I posted an article highlighting the fact that <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/07/the-trump-administration-has-added-more-than-7-trillion-to-national-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the Trump administration has increased the national debt by over $7 trillion</a>. The very first comment I got when I posted the article on my Facebook page was &#8220;what about Obama?&#8221;</p> <p>OK. I&#8217;ll play.</p> <p>The national debt grew by $8.59 trillion over Obama&#8217;s two terms. As of Oct. 8, the Trump administration has added $7.12 trillion. In other words, the Trump administration has nearly matched the amount of debt added by the Obama administration in less than half the time.</p> <p>For a little additional perspective, the fiscal 2020 deficit will come in well over $3 trillion. The largest deficit during the Obama years came in at $1.41 trillion in 2009. So, the Trump administration has more than doubled the previous record budget shortfall.</p> <p>But that won&#8217;t stop the excuses. Trump apologists will blame the spending on the coronavirus pandemic. &#8220;He had no choice! He had to deal with this crisis,&#8221; they will cry. Nevermind that Obama also had to &#8220;deal with&#8221; a major economic meltdown and conservatives criticized him for the spending anyway, Trump was in record deficit territory <em>before the pandemic</em>.</p> <p>In fiscal 2019, <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/28/more-excuses-while-feds-run-biggest-deficit-in-seven-years/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the Trump administration ran the fifth-biggest deficit <em>in history</em></a>. Through the first two months of fiscal 2020, the deficit was already 12 percent over 2019’s huge Obama-like number and was on track to eclipse $1 trillion. Prior to 2020, the U.S. government had only run deficits over $1 trillion four times, all during the Great Recession. We were approaching that number <em>prior to the pandemic</em>, despite what Trump kept calling “<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/01/smoke-and-mirrors-the-greatest-economy-is-built-on-spending-and-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the greatest economy in the history of America</a>.”</p> <p>Clearly, this isn&#8217;t a coronavirus problem. Unconstitutional spending has been the modus operandi of every modern presidential administration &#8211; the current regime not excepted.</p> <p>Nevertheless, if you really want to play the comparison game, Obama was awful. Trump is objectively just as bad. And arguably worse.</p> <p>But why play this dumb comparison game?</p> <p>Claiming Obama was worse or that Trump is &#8220;better than Hillary&#8221; doesn&#8217;t really prove anything. Stop comparing your guy with other crappy politicians &#8211; and I&#8217;m saying this no matter who your guy or gal happens to be. You should measure him against constitutional principles. Every politician and government official, no matter what party they hail from, should be held up against standards and principles. If they don&#8217;t measure up, hold them accountable. Otherwise, you&#8217;re nothing but a partisan hack or a presidential fanboy.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/are-you-a-partisan-hack-or-a-presidential-fan-boy/" target="_blank">Are You A Partisan Hack? Or a Presidential Fan-Boy?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Commentary Debt Barack Obama Donald Trump National Debt Mike Maharrey TAC Joins Coalition Condemning Illegal Spying in San Francisco https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/tac-joins-coalition-condemning-illegal-spying-in-san-francisco/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:5a6a589f-d39e-e520-a5b3-35024d7a0a26 Tue, 13 Oct 2020 19:31:03 +0000 <p>The Tenth Amendment Center has signed on to a letter with more than a dozen organizations condemning the illegal use of private cameras by the San Francisco Police Department during protests in the wake of George Floyd. According to a lawsuit filed on behalf of three San Francisco activists, the SFPD tapped into a private [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/tac-joins-coalition-condemning-illegal-spying-in-san-francisco/" target="_blank">TAC Joins Coalition Condemning Illegal Spying in San Francisco</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>The Tenth Amendment Center has signed on to a letter with more than a dozen organizations condemning the illegal use of private cameras by the San Francisco Police Department during protests in the wake of George Floyd.<span id="more-35534"></span></p> <p>According to <a href="https://www.eff.org/press/releases/activists-sue-san-francisco-wide-ranging-surveillance-black-led-protests-against" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a lawsuit</a> filed on behalf of three San Francisco activists, the SFPD tapped into a private camera network run by a city business district to conduct live mass surveillance in violation of a city ordinance.</p> <p>The San Francisco Board of Supervisors<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/first-in-the-nation-san-francisco-passes-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> passed the ordinance last year</a>. The law bans the use of facial recognition technology in the city and requires any city department to get the Board of Supervisors’ approval before acquiring or using surveillance technology. According to the suit, the SFPD failed to go through the legally required process before commandeering the camera system to surveil protestors.</p> <p>The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) obtained records revealing that the San Francisco Police Department received a real-time remote link allowing them to access more than 400 surveillance cameras. The Union Square Business Improvement District (USBID), a non-city entity,  operates the network. According to EFF,  “These networked cameras are high definition, allow remote zoom and focus capabilities, and are linked to a software system that can automatically analyze content, including distinguishing between when a car or a person passes within the frame.”</p> <p>The coalition letter addressed to every member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors &#8220;strongly condemns&#8221; the SFPD&#8217;s &#8220;illegal surveillance.&#8221;</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;SFPD’s use of a private network of surveillance cameras to spy on Black-led protests against police violence and racism invaded the privacy of protesters, chills and deters further free speech, and disparately impacts people of color. SFPD has also violated the City’s Surveillance Technology Ordinance and this Board’s authority and control over surveillance decisions in our City.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>The letter calls on the Board of Supervisors to &#8220;publicly rebuke this unlawful spying on activity squarely protected by the First Amendment and the California Constitution, and take immediate action to prevent further harm to our community.&#8221;</p> <p>The SFPD&#8217;s use of surveillance technology gives us a glimpse into the broader, quickly expanding, national surveillance state.</p> <p><strong>Impact on Federal Programs</strong></p> <p>Limiting surveillance at the local level also pushes back against the ever-growing national surveillance state.</p> <p>Information collected by local law enforcement undoubtedly ends up in federal databases. The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE.</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p>The federal government encourages and funds surveillance technology including ALPRs, drones and stingrays at the state and local levels across the U.S. In return, it undoubtedly gains access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By requiring approval and placing the acquisition of spy gear in the public spotlight, local governments can take the first step toward limiting the surveillance state at both the local and national level.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/tac-joins-coalition-condemning-illegal-spying-in-san-francisco/" target="_blank">TAC Joins Coalition Condemning Illegal Spying in San Francisco</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Coalitions Surveillance Police-State Privacy San Francisco surveillance Mike Maharrey “Good People” Won’t Save Us https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/good-people-wont-save-us/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:b97563e6-b121-ba4a-a239-6e6a5a412a8d Tue, 13 Oct 2020 19:23:53 +0000 <p>Arthur F. Burns was the Federal Reserve chair appointed by Richard Nixon. He was supposed to be one of the &#8220;good guys.&#8221; As it turns out, his actions did not line up with his &#8220;goodness.&#8221; Burn&#8217;s story is illustrative. It reminds us that we can&#8217;t rely on &#8220;good people&#8221; to protect our liberties. The problem [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/good-people-wont-save-us/" target="_blank">"Good People" Won't Save Us</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>Arthur F. Burns was the Federal Reserve chair appointed by Richard Nixon. He was supposed to be one of the &#8220;good guys.&#8221; As it turns out, his actions did not line up with his &#8220;goodness.&#8221;</p> <p>Burn&#8217;s story is illustrative. It reminds us that we can&#8217;t rely on &#8220;good people&#8221; to protect our liberties. The problem isn&#8217;t the people. It&#8217;s the sources of power we offer them.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Power corrupts: We can&#39;t depend on &quot;good people&quot; to protect our liberty <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://t.co/dp03zLwLvx">pic.twitter.com/dp03zLwLvx</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1315680493069770752?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2020</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/23/how-the-fed-wrecks-the-economy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">How the Fed Wrecks the Economy</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/05/status-report-sound-money-in-the-states/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Status Report: Sound Money in the States</a></p> <p class="pt-cv-title"><a class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-dangers-of-consolidation-brutus-no-1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Dangers of Consolidation: Antifederalist Brutus No. 1</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/good-people-wont-save-us/" target="_blank">"Good People" Won't Save Us</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Big Government Maharrey Minute Arthur Burns Federal Reserve government power Sound Money Mike Maharrey Vermont Governor Allows Bill for Commercial Marijuana Sales to Become Law Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/vermont-governor-allows-bill-for-commercial-marijuana-sales-to-become-law-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:17b15658-9de9-8b49-35ca-a4c55e430ba8 Mon, 12 Oct 2020 20:17:29 +0000 <p>MONTPELIER Vt. (Oct 12, 2020) – Last week, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott allowed a bill that creates a structure to tax and regulate the sale of marijuana become law without his signature despite federal prohibition. He also signed a second measure to create a process for the automatic expungement of some marijuana possession convictions. A [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/vermont-governor-allows-bill-for-commercial-marijuana-sales-to-become-law-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank">Vermont Governor Allows Bill for Commercial Marijuana Sales to Become Law Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p><strong>MONTPELIER</strong> Vt. (Oct 12, 2020) – Last week, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott allowed a bill that creates a structure to tax and regulate the sale of marijuana become law without his signature despite federal prohibition. He also signed a second measure to create a process for the automatic expungement of some marijuana possession convictions.<span id="more-35520"></span></p> <p>A bipartisan coalition of Senators introduced Senate Bill 54 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/VT/bill/S0054/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">S.54</a>) in January 2019. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Vermont legalized the possession of one ounce or less and home cultivation of marijuana</a> by adults over 21 in 2018, but the law did not allow commercial production or distribution of cannabis for the recreational market. Enactment of S.54 creates a regulatory structure for the cultivation and sale of marijuana in the state. The new law will create various categories of business licenses and a taxing structure.</p> <p>The Senate initially passed S.54 <a href="https://legiscan.com/VT/rollcall/S0054/id/811005" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">by a 23-5 vote</a> in February 2019. The House passed a significantly amended version of the bill on Feb. 27 of this year on a voice vote. The bill was then referred to a conference committee made up of three representatives and three senators to hammer out the differences. The compromise bill was approved by the House by a <a href="https://legiscan.com/VT/rollcall/S0054/id/978685" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">92-56 vote</a>. The Senate gave its final approval <a href="https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/roll-call/2020/231" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">23-6</a>. With Gov. Scott&#8217;s commitment not to veto the bill, the law went into effect Oct. 7. Many sections went into immediate effect. Other sections of the law will go into effect over time beginning on Jan. 1, 2021.</p> <p>Scott, a Republican, raised a number of concerns about the new law but said that S.54 “did move forward in a lot of areas that I had concerns about, but it still isn’t exactly what I’d like to see and there are some shortcomings.” (You can read more about Scott&#8217;s comments <a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/vermont-governor-allows-marijuana-sales-legalization-bill-to-take-effect-without-his-signature/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HERE</a>.)</p> <p>Scott signed a second bill creating an automatic expungement process for some marijuana convictions.</p> <p>Sen. Richard Sears (D-North Bennington) introduced Senate Bill 234 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/VT/bill/S0234/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">S.234</a>) in January. Under the new expungement process, individuals convinced of marijuana possession of up to two ounces will have their records automatically reviewed and cleared. The legislation also lifts a requirement that those with past convictions must disclose them.</p> <p>S.234 also decriminalized possession of over one ounce of marijuana.</p> <p>The House passed S.234 by a vote of 113 to 10. The Senate approved the measure today by a voice vote. Scott signed the bill on Oct. 7. The marijuana expungement provisions will go into effect on Jan. 1.</p> <p>Both of these measures became law despite the federal government’s continued prohibition of marijuana.</p> <p><b>STEP-BY-STEP</b></p> <p>Vermont legalized medical marijuana back in 2004. The decriminalization of recreational marijuana last year removed another layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of cannabis, and the enactment of S.54 would take yet another step forward. Despite this, federal prohibition remains on the books.</p> <p>Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>Stripping away state laws criminalizing cannabis is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take up to 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly annual budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution either. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Vermont joins a growing number of states increasingly ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois legalized cannabis through legislative action in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats.</p> <p>Efforts to legalize commercial sales of marijuana in Vermont underscore another important strategic reality. Once a state legalizes marijuana – even if only in a very limited way – it tends to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand expands. That creates pressure to further relax state law. These new laws represent a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/vermont-governor-allows-bill-for-commercial-marijuana-sales-to-become-law-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank">Vermont Governor Allows Bill for Commercial Marijuana Sales to Become Law Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Drug War State Bills cannabis Marijuana S.234 S.54 Vermont Mike Maharrey License Plate Scanners: Surveillance on Your Smartphone https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/license-plate-scanners-surveillance-on-your-smartphone/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:b29da8e7-baff-bc7c-34bb-c9bc52711965 Mon, 12 Oct 2020 20:14:52 +0000 <p>License plate scanners aren’t just for the surveillance state anymore. According to a story published by Bloomberg Business Week, your neighbors might have already added the devices to their home security system. Here’s the explanation: Maryland-based Rekor Systems Inc. has started offering home video surveillance software through a service called Watchman, starting at $5 a [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/license-plate-scanners-surveillance-on-your-smartphone/" target="_blank">License Plate Scanners: Surveillance on Your Smartphone</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>License plate scanners aren’t just for the surveillance state anymore.<span id="more-35528"></span></p> <p>According to a story published by Bloomberg Business Week, your neighbors might have already added the devices to their home security system.</p> <p>Here’s the explanation:</p> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote"><p>Maryland-based Rekor Systems Inc. has started offering home video surveillance software through a service called Watchman, starting at $5 a month. In addition to reading a license plate, the system can record a vehicle’s make, color, and body type. In October, Rekor will launch what it says is a “first of its kind” mobile app, which will let users scan license plates with their phone camera. The app could come in handy for schools, to “securely identify valid visitors for student pickup lines” or to manage cars in parking lots, among other uses, the company says.</p></blockquote> <p>Yep. You read that right. For about $5 a month, your neighbors could have technology at their fingertips capable of reading a license plate and recording details about your car. Standing there in front of their house, your neighbor — or anyone with the app — can point their smartphone camera at your car’s license plate and immediately give law enforcement and government access to all the personal data attached to your car registration.</p> <p>Not that you should be pleased that such personal information is searched and stored by police — unless they have a warrant, such a collection of data from your license plate violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — but it’s quite another level of invasiveness for strangers walking down the street to be able to access that information on their phone!</p> <p>Nathan Wessler, a civil liberties attorney, calls out the genuine privacy concerns that come with having license plate scanning software loaded on smartphones and available to most consumers.</p> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote"><p>“As companies get their software hooked up to more and more peoples’ cameras that are already out in the wild, we’re going to see these databases grow in really robust ways, which is troubling,” Wessler says. “The data can reveal information about how someone’s living their life, and all that data is sitting on servers of companies. And there’s not very clear legal protection for a lot of that data.</p></blockquote> <p>It’s not like Rekor Systems is trying to hide the power (and potential abuse) of their Watchman software package. Here’s the company’s description of the capability of the app:</p> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote"><p>Watchman enables accurate automatic license plate and vehicle recognition on nearly any IP, traffic, or security camera. Detection results are displayed on a web-based interface, which can be accessed from anywhere. Installation is quick and easy, making it perfect for businesses of all sizes and homeowners alike.</p></blockquote> <p>Wow. When it comes to automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) tech installed on smartphones, you don’t want to see words like “everywhere,” “nearly any,” and “quick and easy” used in the promotional literature!</p> <p>I have to share just one of the several “use cases” highlighted by Rekor on the Watchman website.</p> <p>Under the label “Protect your family and property,” Rekor promotes the Watchman product with this example of how the product could be used by consumers:</p> <blockquote class="wp-block-quote"><p>Watchman allows homeowners to increase safety and receive alerts to thwart criminals and keep their loved ones safe. Additionally, Watchman’s vehicle recognition allows homeowners to automate common tasks such as garage door opening, turning on/off lights, and locking/unlocking doors.</p></blockquote> <p>OK. There are a few problems with this promo, beginning with the notion that the tech will thwart “criminals.” In the United States, one is not a criminal until they have been: first, charged with a crime; second, been given an opportunity to answer those charges; third, had those charges presented before an impartial tribunal (judge or jury); fourth, being found guilty of the charges; and finally, having received a sentence from an impartial tribunal.</p> <p>That, my friends, is what we call due process, and it is what separates us from the totalitarian regimes that round up dissenters and “criminals” without rhyme, reason, or repercussion. We don’t want to become such a society.</p> <p>I propose the following scenario as something maybe readers can relate to that might motivate you to be aware and wary of such surveillance technology.</p> <p>Two neighbors are arguing for months over some matter and the disagreement has escalated to a heated exchange of words. Now imagine that one of the neighbors subscribes to Rekor’s Watchman security system and he knows that he can go out at night and instantly give law enforcement access to critical personal data simply by pointing his smartphone camera at his neighbor’s license plate.</p> <p>This, dear readers, is the reason the Fourth Amendment exists and this is why such powerful and invasive technology is turning our very neighborhoods into outposts of the surveillance state.</p> <p><strong>Originally published at <a href="https://thenewamerican.com/license-plate-scanners-surveillance-on-your-smartphone/"><em>The New American Magazine</em></a></strong></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/license-plate-scanners-surveillance-on-your-smartphone/" target="_blank">License Plate Scanners: Surveillance on Your Smartphone</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> License Plate Tracking Surveillance ALPR automatic license plate reader Joe Wolverton, II Centralized Government Is Like a Walmart Monopoly https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/centralized-government-is-like-a-walmart-monopoly/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:27aa2151-1c13-307c-efc5-307c33a188fd Mon, 12 Oct 2020 20:00:25 +0000 <p>Imagine if I was the all-powerful king and I declared that from now on, Walmart would be the sole supplier of groceries in the land. How many of you would go for that plan? Well, there isn&#8217;t any difference between a Walmart monopoly on groceries and a federal government monopoly on government. Monopolies are bad [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/centralized-government-is-like-a-walmart-monopoly/" target="_blank">Centralized Government Is Like a Walmart Monopoly</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>Imagine if I was the all-powerful king and I declared that from now on, Walmart would be the sole supplier of groceries in the land. How many of you would go for that plan?</p> <p>Well, there isn&#8217;t any difference between a Walmart monopoly on groceries and a federal government monopoly on government.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Monopolies are bad &#8211; whether it&#39;s a big corporation or a big government. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://t.co/flhnqKEhFJ">pic.twitter.com/flhnqKEhFJ</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1314663130060877824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 9, 2020</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p class="entry-title dce-post-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/the-constitution-a-framework-for-decentralizing-toward-liberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Constitution: A Framework For Decentralizing Toward Liberty</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/this-country-is-too-big-for-d-c/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">This Country is too Big for D.C.</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/11/washington-d-c-is-like-a-broken-down-car/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Washington D.C. is Like a Broken Down Car</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/centralized-government-is-like-a-walmart-monopoly/" target="_blank">Centralized Government Is Like a Walmart Monopoly</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Commentary Maharrey Minute Decentralization government power Mike Maharrey Centralizing Power Destroys Liberty https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/centralizing-power-destroys-liberty/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:7f654172-3609-28b9-f580-18d125a92915 Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:50:48 +0000 <p>I ran across an interesting article the other day discussing the growing level of hatred in American politics. The author made some good points, but I think he missed the fundamental problem &#8211; centralization of power in Washington D.C. The founders called this &#8220;consolidation&#8221; and many warned that it would be destructive to our liberty. [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/centralizing-power-destroys-liberty/" target="_blank">Centralizing Power Destroys Liberty</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>I ran across an interesting article the other day discussing the growing level of hatred in American politics. The author made some good points, but I think he missed the fundamental problem &#8211; centralization of power in Washington D.C.</p> <p>The founders called this &#8220;consolidation&#8221; and many warned that it would be destructive to our liberty.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Centralization of power is the problem, and we were warned it would be. </p> <p>When you have all the important decisions being made by a small group of people in a far away government, of course people are going to fight tooth and nail over control of that institution. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://t.co/TCysAGBLvV">pic.twitter.com/TCysAGBLvV</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1314330825517752321?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2020</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/weve-brought-the-founders-greatest-fear-to-life/">We’ve Brought the Founders’ Greatest Fear to Life</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/supreme-court-warnings-from-the-anti-federalists/">Supreme Court: Warnings from the Anti-Federalists</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/why-the-10th-amendment-federalism-as-a-tool-to-advance-liberty/">Why the 10th Amendment? Federalism as a Tool to Advance Liberty</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/centralizing-power-destroys-liberty/" target="_blank">Centralizing Power Destroys Liberty</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Founding Principles Maharrey Minute Centralization Patrick Henry Politics Mike Maharrey Status Report: Nullify the Surveillance State https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/status-report-nullify-the-surveillance-state/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4fbff791-b1af-35a0-7538-e1b00d500a6c Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:34:41 +0000 <p>Although NSA spying remains the most high-profile warrantless surveillance program, the federal government has created a national surveillance network that extends well beyond the operation of this single agency. In fact, state and local law enforcement have become vital cogs in the national surveillance state. On this episode, get an overview of state and local [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/status-report-nullify-the-surveillance-state/" target="_blank">Status Report: Nullify the Surveillance State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>Although NSA spying remains the most high-profile warrantless surveillance program, the federal government has created a national surveillance network that extends well beyond the operation of this single agency. In fact, state and local law enforcement have become vital cogs in the national surveillance state. On this episode, get an overview of state and local actions to push back on surveillance technologies such as license plate tracking, cell site simulators, facial recognition and more.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: October 12, 2020<span id="more-35521"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/XU51hj65tK4?start=61" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">State of the Nullification Movement Report</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/12/status-report-nullifying-the-national-surveillance-state/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Status Report: Nullifying the National Surveillance State</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/street-level-surveillance-top-4-technologies-and-strategies-to-stop-them/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Street Level Surveillance: Top-4 Technologies and Strategies to Stop Them</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/how-one-state-turned-off-the-water-to-the-feds-and-won-good-morning-liberty-02-11-19/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">How One State Turned off the Water to the Feds and Won</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-101220:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1488778028176612" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/yfjLYZrgaMJH/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/768319443" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/c512601b-42e6-49bb-be28-579918188ed2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1lDxLyLeddQKm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/222d9066-a06a-4240-ad39-adedaba0149f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+J3VBb1cGg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> LBRY: <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter">https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/status-report-nullify-the-surveillance-state/" target="_blank">Status Report: Nullify the Surveillance State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Facial Recognition License Plate Tracking Path to Liberty State Bills Stingrays Surveillance ALPR facial recognition Nullification Movement surveillance Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 33:20 Although NSA spying remains the most high-profile warrantless surveillance program, the federal government has created a national surveillance network that extends well beyond the operation of this single agency. In fact, Although NSA spying remains the most high-profile warrantless surveillance program, the federal government has created a national surveillance network that extends well beyond the operation of this single agency. In fact, state and local law enforcement have become vital cogs in the national surveillance state. On this episode, get an overview of state and local […] Status Report: Nullifying the National Surveillance State https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/12/status-report-nullifying-the-national-surveillance-state/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:f5bd10bc-9b51-ad32-0d29-c528a0b9a862 Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:01:24 +0000 In 2014, the Tenth Amendment Center dove headfirst in the fight against unconstitutional federal surveillance when it spearheaded efforts to turn off the water at the NSA facility in Bluffdale, Utah, and cut off other critical state and local services to other NSA facilities. We haven&#8217;t turned off the water in Utah &#8212; yet. But [&#8230;] <p>In 2014, the Tenth Amendment Center dove headfirst in the fight against unconstitutional federal surveillance when it spearheaded efforts to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ANUo8BnYoo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">turn off the water</a> at the NSA facility in Bluffdale, Utah, and cut off other critical state and local services to other NSA facilities.</p> <p>We haven&#8217;t turned off the water in Utah &#8212; yet. But we did win some victories. <span style="font-weight: 400;">In 2014, </span><a href="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/10/a-good-first-step-california-governor-signs-anti-surveillance-bill-into-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span style="font-weight: 400;">California Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB828 into law</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, laying the foundation for the state to turn off water, electricity and other resources to any federal agency engaged in mass warrantless surveillance. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">In 2018, Michigan built on this foundation with </span><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/06/now-in-effect-michigan-bans-material-support-or-resources-for-warrantless-federal-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span style="font-weight: 400;">the passage of HB4430</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">. The new law prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from assisting, participating with, or providing “material support or resources, to a federal agency to enable it to collect, or to facilitate in the collection or use of a person’s electronic data,” without a warrant or under a few other carefully defined exceptions. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Although NSA spying remains the most high-profile warrantless surveillance program, the federal government has created a national surveillance network that extends well beyond the operation of this single agency. In fact, state and local law enforcement have become vital cogs in the national surveillance state. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">State, local and federal governments work together to conduct surveillance in many ways. As a result, efforts to protect privacy at the state and local level have a significant spillover effect to the national level.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">While continuing efforts to cut off resources to NSA facilities in recent years, we also focused on other state-federal surveillance partnerships that feed into the national spy-state.</span></p> <p><b>ALPR/License Plate Tracking</b></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">As reported in the </span><a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spies-on-millions-of-cars-1422314779?autologin=y" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Wall Street Journal</span></i></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, the federal government, via the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), tracks the location of millions of vehicles through data provided by Automatic Licence Plate Readers (ALPRs) operated on a state and local level. They’ve engaged in this for nearly 10 years, all without a warrant, or even public notice of the policy.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Currently, six states have placed significant restrictions on the use of ALPRs. Activists are expected to push several states to consider similar restrictions in the next legislative session.</span></p> <p><b>Facial Recognition and Biometric Surveillance</b></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Facial recognition is the newest frontier in the national surveillance state. Over the last few years, the federal government has spearheaded a drive to expand the use of this invasive technology. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">At the same time, some state and local governments have aggressively pushed back.<br /> </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of laws banning or restricting the use of facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering biometric data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">In 2019, California </span><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/signed-as-law-california-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span style="font-weight: 400;">enacted a law</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> that prohibits a law enforcement agency or law enforcement official from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer camera. This includes body-worn and handheld devices. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">This new law had a significant impact. After its enactment, </span><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/san-diego-shuts-down-massive-facial-recognition-system-to-comply-with-new-california-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span style="font-weight: 400;">San Diego </span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">shut down one of the largest facial recognition programs in the country in order to comply with the law.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Washington state </span><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/03/to-the-governor-washington-bill-would-put-limits-on-facial-recognition-technology/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">passed a bill</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> that would require a warrant for ongoing and realtime facial recognition surveillance. The bill doesn’t completely ban the use of facial recognition and there is some concern about how police will interpret the statute, but it takes a good first step toward addressing the issue.</span></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/grassroots-coalition-pushing-new-york-governor-to-sign-bill-putting-moratorium-on-facial-recognition-in-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">New York passed a bill</a> that would place a moratorium on the use of facial recognition in schools. At the time of this report, it is awaiting Gov. Cuomo&#8217;s signature.</p> <p>There have also been a large number of local facial recognition bans implemented in the last year, particularly in California and Massachusetts.</p> <p><b>Stingrays and Electronic Data Collection</b></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Cell site simulators, more commonly called “</span><a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/cell-site-simulatorsimsi-catchers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span style="font-weight: 400;">stingrays</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">,” are portable devices used for cell phone surveillance and location tracking. They essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the cell tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up all communications content within range of that tower. The stingray will also locate and track any person in possession of a phone or other electronic device that tries to connect to the tower.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">In 2019, New Mexico barred warrantless stingray spying in its </span><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/now-in-effect-new-mexico-electronic-communications-privacy-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Electronic Communications Privacy Act</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">. The law requires police to obtain a warrant or wiretap order before deploying a stingray device, unless they have the explicit permission of the owner or authorized possessor of the device, or if the device is lost or stolen. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">In the 2020 session, </span><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/03/signed-as-law-new-mexico-strengthens-electronic-communications-privacy-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span style="font-weight: 400;">New Mexico expanded protections under that 2019 law</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> by limiting the retention and use of incidentally-collected data.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Also in 2020, the Maryland legislature passed a bill to </span><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/03/to-the-governor-maryland-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-stingray-spying-hinder-federal-surveillance-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span style="font-weight: 400;">ban warrantless stingray spying</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> by adding provisions to existing statutes limiting warrantless location tracking through electronic devices. The bill addresses the use of cell-site simulators, requiring police to get a court order based on probable cause before deploying a stingray device. The bill also bars police from using a stingray to obtain communication content and spells out explicit criteria law enforcement must meet in order to justify such an order.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Two other states also expanded their restrictions on warrantless government access to electronic data last year.</span></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/now-in-effect-utah-law-bans-warrantless-access-to-information-in-the-cloud/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Utah passed a bill</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> expanding its electronic data protection by barring law enforcement agencies from accessing electronic information or data transmitted to a “remote computing service” without a warrant based on probable cause in most situations. In effect, it prohibits police from accessing information uploaded into the “cloud” without a warrant. The state previously prohibited both the use of stingrays and accessing data on a device without a warrant. </span></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/signed-as-law-illinois-limits-warrantless-location-tracking-hinders-federal-surveillance-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Illinois also expanded its protection of electronic data</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> in 2019. Under the old law, police were required to get a court order based on probable cause before obtaining a person’s current or future location information using a stingray or other means. The new law removes the words “current or future” from the statute. In effect, the law now includes historical location information under the court order requirement. </span></p> <p>This is an overview of the most recent moves to limit surveillance and chip away at the ever-growing national surveillance state. To get more details on state efforts to undermine government spying, along with other unconstitutional federal actions and programs, make sure you read our latest State of the Nullification Movement report. You can download it for free <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HERE</a>.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> State Bills Surveillance ALPR Cell Site Simulator facial recognition fourth-amendment Privacy stingray Mike Maharrey Trump’s “New and Improved” Obamacare https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/11/trumps-new-and-improved-obamacare/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:70bc48b5-d8c3-a626-3c13-e287fb5cdd4d Sun, 11 Oct 2020 11:55:39 +0000 At an appearance in Charlotte, North Carolina, last month, President Trump unveiled his replacement for Obamacare that “puts patients first, families first, and — perhaps most importantly for all of us — America first.” The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as the PPACA, ACA, or Obamacare, was signed into law on March 23, 2010. [&#8230;] <p>At an appearance in Charlotte, North Carolina, last month, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-america-first-healthcare-plan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">President Trump</a> unveiled his replacement for Obamacare that “puts patients first, families first, and — perhaps most importantly for all of us — America first.”<span id="more-29553"></span></p> <p>The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as the PPACA, ACA, or Obamacare, was signed into law on March 23, 2010. It consisted of numerous “reforms” to health care and health insurance and a bevy of new taxes and tax increases to pay for them.</p> <p>Obamacare expanded Medicare; created state health-insurance exchanges; began federal subsidies for the purchase of health insurance; and required that insurance companies provide policies with minimum standards, cover all applicants without regard to their pre-existing medical conditions, eliminate annual and lifetime caps on benefits, eliminate co-payments and deductibles for selected health-insurance benefits, and allow children to remain on their parents’ insurance plan until their 26th birthday.</p> <p>Obamacare increased taxes on wages and investment income for higher-income taxpayers, decreased the medical-expense tax deduction (thus effectively raising taxes), and imposed new taxes on indoor tanning services, drug companies, health insurers, medical-device manufactures, and comprehensive health-insurance plans.</p> <p>Obamacare also instituted employer and individual mandates. The employer mandate dictated that all employers with 50 or more full-time or full-time-equivalent employees must offer them “affordable” health insurance that provides “minimum value” or pay an annual tax penalty of $2,000 per employee. The individual mandate dictated that every American not covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or private health insurance must purchase health insurance or pay up to $285 per family or 1 percent of taxable income (2014), up to $975 per family or 2 percent of taxable income (2015), and up to a maximum of $2,085 per family or 2.5 percent of taxable income (2016 and beyond) as an “individual shared responsibility fee.”</p> <p>Said <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-america-first-healthcare-plan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Trump</a> in his speech about Obamacare, “It was terrible and very, very expensive. Hurt a lot of people. Premiums were too high. Deductibles were a disaster. Patients had no choice. You couldn’t keep your doctor. But, by far, the worst part of Obamacare was this thing called the ‘individual mandate.’”</p> <p>But in spite of many attempts, Republicans could not bring themselves to just simply repeal Obamacare lock, stock, and barrel. To their credit, Republicans did eliminate the individual mandate in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and a federal district court and a federal appeals court then ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Democrats and Republicans united in 2019 to repeal the medical-device tax and the “Cadillac tax” on high-cost, employer-sponsored health-care plans. The rest of Obamacare still stands.</p> <p>But according to <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-america-first-healthcare-plan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Trump</a>,</p> <blockquote><p>Obamacare is no longer Obamacare. As we worked on it and managed it very well. We stabilized it and got premiums down very substantially.</p> <p>But it’s still unacceptable to me because it’s too expensive and doesn’t really do the job as well as we could have. So what we have now is a much better plan. It is no longer Obamacare because we’ve gotten rid of the worst part of it — the individual mandate — and made it much less expensive. A lot of that was through good management. We manage it properly. We have tremendous people working on it. Simultaneously with all of this, we are joining in a lawsuit to end this ill-conceived plan. I’m in court to terminate this really, really terrible situation.</p> <p>If we win, we will have a better and less expensive plan that will always protect individuals with preexisting conditions. If we lose, what we have now is better than the original — the original version of Obamacare, by far. Much better. Much better. Again, we will always protect patients with preexisting conditions.</p></blockquote> <p>The president’s new and improved version of Obamacare is called “<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-america-first-healthcare-plan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">An America-First Healthcare Plan</a>”:</p> <blockquote><p>We will ensure the highest standard of care anywhere in the world, cutting-edge treatments, state-of-the-art medicine, groundbreaking cures, and true health security for you and your loved ones. And we will do it rapidly, and it’s in very good order, and some of it has already been implemented.</p> <p>My plan expands affordable insurance options, reduces the cost of prescription drugs, will end surprise medical billing, increases fairness through price transparency, streamlines bureaucracy, accelerates innovation, strongly protects Medicare, and always protects patients with preexisting conditions.</p></blockquote> <p>The “three pillars” of Trump’s plan are choice, lower costs, and better care. Here are the highlights:</p> <blockquote><p>Under our plan, you’ll have the freedom to shop for the option that is right for you and your family. These options include new, affordable choices that cost up to 60 percent less than Obamacare.</p> <p>Through a massive expansion of health reimbursement arrangements, millions of Americans will be able to shop for a plan of their choice on the individual market and then have their employer cover the full cost.</p> <p>My plan will also revolutionize access to telehealth.</p> <p>We will end surprise medical billing.</p> <p>My plan also includes the vital reform of price transparency.</p> <p>I’m taking on the lobbyists and the special interests to lower the price of prescription drugs.</p> <p>We will finally allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from Canada.</p> <p>Under my plan, 33 million Medicare beneficiaries will soon receive a card in the mail containing $200 that they can use to help pay for prescription drugs.</p> <p>Under my plan, hundreds of thousands of Medicare patients will see their insulin costs capped at just $35 a month.</p> <p>We’ll ensure that all seniors pay the same price for the same service, whether at a hospital, a surgery center, or a doctor’s office.</p> <p>As long as I’m President, no one will lay a hand on your Medicare. Your Medicare is going to be safe and it’s going to be solid.</p> <p>The historic action I’m taking today includes the first-ever executive order to affirm it is the official policy of the United States government to protect patients with preexisting conditions.</p> <p>We’ll require doctors to make your records available electronically, and you’ll own them, and you’ll control them, and they will be portable, and you’ll be able to work seamlessly with all of your medical providers.</p></blockquote> <p>Trump then issued an executive order (<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-america-first-healthcare-plan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">no. 13951</a>) about his health-care plan that mostly recounts, in a very long section 1, “Purpose,” his administration’s health-care accomplishments. Section 1 concludes,</p> <blockquote><p>Taken together, these extraordinary reforms constitute an ongoing effort to improve American healthcare by putting patients first and delivering continuous innovation. And this effort will continue to succeed because of my Administration’s commitment to delivering great healthcare with more choices, better care, and lower costs for all Americans.</p></blockquote> <p>Section 2, “Policy,” merely says, “It has been and will continue to be the policy of the United States to give Americans seeking healthcare more choice, lower costs, and better care and to ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions can obtain the insurance of their choice at affordable rates.”</p> <p>Section 3, “Giving Americans More Choice in Healthcare,” merely says, “The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall maintain and build upon existing actions to expand access to and options for affordable healthcare.”</p> <p>Section 4, “Lowering Healthcare Costs for Americans,” relates to expanding access to “affordable medicines,” “facilitating the safe importation of affordable prescription drugs from abroad,” ending “surprise billing,” and reducing “waste, fraud, and abuse in the healthcare system.”</p> <p>Section 5, “Providing Better Care to Americans,” concerns improving “quality in the delivery of care for veterans,” and government promotion of “medical innovations to find novel and improved treatments for COVID-19, Alzheimer’s disease, sickle cell disease, pediatric cancer, and other conditions threatening the well-being of Americans.”</p> <p>Would it be good if the United States and its citizens had the highest standard of care anywhere in the world, cutting-edge treatments, state-of-the-art medicine, ground-breaking cures, true health security, affordable insurance options, reduced prices on prescription drugs, no surprise medical bills, price transparency, more choice, lower health-care costs, increased access to telehealth? Would it be good if waste, fraud, and abuse in the health-care system were reduced?</p> <p>Of course it would.</p> <p>But a government plan is not the way to do those things. Everything the government touches it distorts and corrupts. And aside from the fact that Trump’s health-care plan is a government health-care plan — and therefore not only illegitimate but doomed to fail — there are a number of troubling aspects of his plan.</p> <ol> <li>It “strongly protects” Medicare. Trump criticized socialism nine times in his remarks in Charlotte. But what is Medicare if it is not socialized Medicine?</li> <li>It ensures “that Americans with pre-existing conditions can obtain the insurance of their choice at affordable rates.” It actually makes it “the official policy of the United States government” to do so. This is pure Obamacare. It is like buying a fire insurance policy for your home after it has burned to the ground.</li> <li>It gives “33 million Medicare beneficiaries” $200 “to help pay for prescription drugs.” This is simply a government handout to seniors — the largest class of voters — right before an election.</li> <li>It caps insulin costs for “hundreds of thousands of Medicare patients” at $35 a month. This is either blatant government price control or a massive subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry, or perhaps a little of both.</li> <li>It requires doctors to make your records available electronically. Perhaps electronic records are a good thing or perhaps not. My point is that the government shouldn’t be requiring doctors to do anything with medical records.</li> <li>It tasks the government with promoting “medical innovations to find novel and improved treatments” for diseases. But it is simply not the proper role of government to engage in or fund such activity.</li> <li>It is blatantly unconstitutional. Trump doesn’t mention the Constitution in his remarks. How could he have? The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to have anything to do with health care, health insurance, medical devices, medical treatment, medical records, medical research, clinical trials, family planning, HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives, vaccination programs, hospitals, physicians, nurses, medical schools, or drugs, or to have Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, the National Institutes of Health, federal laboratories, the FDA, or the Department of Health and Human Services.</li> </ol> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/trumps-new-and-improved-obamacare/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">originally published on the Future Freedom Foundation website</a></em></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Current Events Federal Power Federal Programs Donald Trump healthcare Obamacare Trumpcare Laurence M. Vance How the Supreme Court and the Incorporation Doctrine Helped Kill Breonna Taylor https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/09/how-the-supreme-court-and-the-incorporation-doctrine-helped-kill-breonna-taylor/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:14843547-7ee0-22d0-1e9e-c97f7fbb330e Fri, 09 Oct 2020 17:59:14 +0000 There has been plenty of debate surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky. But seldom mentioned is the role Supreme Court precedent and the incorporation doctrine played in setting the legal stage for events to unfold ending with the death of a young woman. Breonna Taylor was in bed with her boyfriend Kenneth [&#8230;] <p>There has been plenty of debate surrounding the death of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky. But seldom mentioned is the role Supreme Court precedent and the incorporation doctrine played in setting the legal stage for events to unfold ending with the death of a young woman.</p> <p>Breonna Taylor was in bed with her boyfriend Kenneth Walker in the early-morning hours of March 13 when police broke into her home executing a no-knock warrant issued earlier that day. Walker claims he heard banging on the door but never hear anybody say &#8220;police.&#8221; When the officers broke down the door, Walker fired a shot, hitting an officer in the leg. Police returned fire, killing Taylor. She suffered at least eight gunshot wounds.</p> <p>Walker escaped unharmed. After the shooting stopped but before he was taken into custody, Walker called 911 and said, “I don’t know what’s happening. Somebody kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend.”</p> <p>Officers were ultimately cleared of any criminal wrongdoing in Taylor&#8217;s death. A grand jury indicted one officer on reckless endangerment charges for firing into a neighboring apartment.</p> <p>Under the law, officers were justified in entering the apartment because they had a valid warrant. There is considerable debate about whether or not police announced themselves before entering. Officers and at least one witness said they did. Walker&#8217;s 911 call indicates that if they did, he didn&#8217;t hear them. Regardless, the police were not required to knock or announce themselves because the warrant was a &#8220;no-nock&#8221; warrant, meaning officers could legally enter the apartment without any notice.</p> <p>The grand jury determined that since the police entered the apartment legally, they also had the legal right to defend themselves once Walker fired his weapon. In the eyes of the grand jury, Taylor was collateral damage in a legally justified police self-defense response.</p> <p>There has been a hot debate about the events that transpired inside Taylor&#8217;s home. Were police reckless when they opened fire? Did Walker have a right to shoot? Was it racially motivated? Did police misrepresent facts to obtain the warrant? There is plenty to parse out. But it&#8217;s also important to take a step back and look at the legal framework that made the no-knock raid possible to begin with. Without Supreme Court precedent applied to local law enforcement through the incorporation doctrine, police may well have never crashed into Breonna Taylor&#8217;s home that morning.</p> <p><strong>No-Knock Warrants</strong></p> <p>In the 1995 case <em><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15506865603077276139&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wilson v. Arkansas</a></em>, the Supreme Court established that police must peacefully knock, announce their presence, and allow time for the occupants to open the door before entering a home to serve a warrant. But the Court allowed for &#8220;exigent circumstance&#8221; exceptions if police fear violence, if the suspect is a flight risk, or if officers fear the suspect will destroy evidence.</p> <p>As journalist <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/03/no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-was-illegal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Radley Balko notes</a>, police utilized this exception to the fullest extent, &#8220;simply declaring in search warrant affidavits that <i>all</i> drug dealers are a threat to dispose of evidence, flee or assault the officers at the door.&#8221;</p> <p>The SCOTUS eliminated this blanket exception in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10920539616941250099&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i>Richards v. Wisconsin</i></a>  (1997) requiring police to show why a specific individual is a threat to dispose of evidence, commit an act of violence or flee from police. But even with the opinion, the bar for obtaining a no-knock warrant remains low.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;In order to justify a &#8216;no-knock&#8217; entry, the police must have a <strong>reasonable suspicion</strong> that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.&#8221; [Emphasis added]</p></blockquote> <p>Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low legal bar to meet.</p> <p>A third Supreme Court ruling effectively eliminated the consequences for violating the &#8220;knock and announce&#8221; requirement without a no-knock warrant. In <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1360.pdf">Hudson v. Michigan</a></em> (2006), the High Court held that evidence seized in violation of knock and announce was not subject to the exclusionary rule. In other words, police could still use the evidence in court even though the technically gathered it illegally.</p> <p>The Supreme Court has also created a legal environment that provides cops broad authority to shoot armed citizens, even if the police are violating the Constitution. For instance, in <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-369_09m1.pdf">County of Los Angeles v. Mendez</a></em> (2017) the Court effectively held that police can shoot a person in their own home even if the officers are violating the individual&#8217;s constitutional rights.</p> <p><strong>Qualified Immunity and the Incorporation Doctrine</strong></p> <p>Officers who violate no-knock rules or more broadly infringe on rights protect by the Constitution could still face lawsuits. But the qualified immunity defense creates an almost insurmountable legal barrier for victims of police abuse.</p> <p>Through a series of Supreme Court opinions, <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/13/how-federal-courts-gave-us-qualified-immunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">federal courts created a qualified immunity defense out of thin air</a>, making it nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers responsible for actions taken in the line of duty. In order to move ahead with a suit, the plaintiff must establish that it was “clearly established” that the officer’s action was unconstitutional. The “clearly established” test erects an almost insurmountable hurdle to those trying to prove excessive force or a violation of their rights. As a result, police rarely face consequences for actions taken in the line of duty, no matter how egregious the violation of rights protected by the Constitution.</p> <p>Significantly, were it not for the dubious “<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>” made up by the Supreme Crout based on the 14th Amendment that purportedly empowers the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, these cases would have never gone to federal court and we wouldn&#8217;t have these blanket rules.</p> <p>A lot of people believe that the Bill of Rights always applied to state governments. This is simply not true. <a href="https://www.michaelmaharrey.com/919-919/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Bill of Rights was never intended to bind the actions of state governments.</a> The application of the federal Bill of Rights to the states came about through a series of federal court cases based on the 14th Amendment.</p> <p>Many conservatives and libertarians support the incorporation doctrine because they think federal courts will protect individual rights from getting trampled by tyrannical state and local governments. That sounds good in theory, but it rarely works that way in practice. In most cases, federal courts expand government power and cement it in legal stone, as we&#8217;ve seen with no-knock warrants and qualified immunity. And because of the incorporation doctrine, these expansions of power are not limited to the state where the case occurs.</p> <p>In effect, the Court sets precedents that become universally applied across the U.S. In terms of local policing, the incorporation doctrine and the application of the federal Bill of Rights to state and local governments protect police officers, allow no-knock warrants, and allow cops to shoot individuals with little fear of legal repercussions — in every city, county and state in the U.S. from Honolulu, Hawaii to West Quoddy Head, Maine.</p> <p>State and local governments can place more strict restrictions on police officers beyond what the SCOTUS legal framework allows. For instance, Louisville banned no-knock warrants after cops shot Taylor to death. But this rarely happens. In a federalized system, most states and localities defer to the legal requirements set forth by the High Court. The centralization of the legal system leads to a centralization of policy.</p> <p>A decentralized system where cases were heard under state law and state constitutions would undoubtedly have problems. Some states would probably extend almost complete protection to law enforcement officers just like the federalized system. But surely some would be better.</p> <p>It might be hyperbole to say the Supreme Court and the incorporation doctrine killed Breonna Taylor. But they certainly created the system that made the events leading up to her death possible. And I would argue the system functions just as designed. It empowers government and protects its agents at your expense. If you don&#8217;t want outcomes as we saw in Louisville, stop centralizing power in D.C.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Current Events Judiciary Breonna Taylor Incorporation Doctrine no-knock raid Police Police State qualified immunity Mike Maharrey The Dangers of Consolidation: Antifederalist Brutus No. 1 https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-dangers-of-consolidation-brutus-no-1/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:e0815a63-854d-0729-d31f-5aaff0192d04 Fri, 09 Oct 2020 17:04:10 +0000 <p>Whether they supported or opposed the Constitution &#8211; virtually everyone at the time of ratification was in agreement on at least one major thing &#8211; the threat to liberty from consolidation. Brutus, one of the leading anti-federalist writers &#8211; explained why. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 9, 2020 Subscribe: iTunes &#124; Spotify &#124; [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-dangers-of-consolidation-brutus-no-1/" target="_blank">The Dangers of Consolidation: Antifederalist Brutus No. 1</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>Whether they supported or opposed the Constitution &#8211; virtually everyone at the time of ratification was in agreement on at least one major thing &#8211; the threat to liberty from consolidation. Brutus, one of the leading anti-federalist writers &#8211; explained why.</p> <p>Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 9, 2020 <span id="more-35513"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/_oqqfSUhJQ8" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">State of the Nullification Movement Report</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-primary-documents/primary-documents-in-us-government-and-civics/a/brutus-no-1" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Brutus No. 1</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-09-02-0286" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Jefferson to Cabell (2 Feb 1816)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1907#Elliot_1314-03_329" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Patrick Henry &#8211; consolidation</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-100920:e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=679274466319261" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/bXdef0LmNqIp/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/765274998" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/9d833504-b40b-44c1-b82e-9b23c55735ab" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1OdKrWVRZrOGX" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/74854dba-a051-4127-90c6-58dd98bd2dda" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+f1hpuvcGg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CGIU4-7nrQA/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> LBRY: <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter">https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-dangers-of-consolidation-brutus-no-1/" target="_blank">The Dangers of Consolidation: Antifederalist Brutus No. 1</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Antifederalists Audio/Video Brutus Founding Fathers Path to Liberty Brutus No 1 Centralization Consolidation Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 13:37 Whether they supported or opposed the Constitution – virtually everyone at the time of ratification was in agreement on at least one major thing – the threat to liberty from consolidation. Brutus, one of the leading anti-federalist writers – explained ... Whether they supported or opposed the Constitution – virtually everyone at the time of ratification was in agreement on at least one major thing – the threat to liberty from consolidation. Brutus, one of the leading anti-federalist writers – explained why. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 9, 2020 Subscribe: iTunes | Spotify | […] Maine Begins Legal Recreational Marijuana Sales Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/maine-begins-legal-recreational-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:1a0cb6d7-593e-774b-1764-82a91bc80206 Fri, 09 Oct 2020 10:11:47 +0000 <p>AUGUSTA, Maine (Oct. 9, 2020) &#8211; Licensed retailers can legally sell recreational marijuana in Maine beginning today, despite federal prohibition. The Maine Office of Marijuana Policy (OMP) originally planned to launch retail sales in April, but pushed the timeline back to Oct. 9 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The OMP approved conditional licenses for adult-use [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/maine-begins-legal-recreational-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank">Maine Begins Legal Recreational Marijuana Sales Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p><strong>AUGUSTA</strong>, Maine (Oct. 9, 2020) &#8211; Licensed retailers can legally sell recreational marijuana in Maine beginning today, despite federal prohibition.<span id="more-35503"></span></p> <p>The Maine Office of Marijuana Policy (OMP) originally planned to launch retail sales in April, but pushed the timeline back to Oct. 9 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.</p> <p>The OMP approved conditional licenses for adult-use marijuana establishments in March and issued its first active licenses on Sept. 8, including three cultivation licenses, two for retail stores and one for a marijuana testing facility. As of Monday, the OMP had issued licenses for seven retail stores, seven growers, four manufacturers and one lab, <a href="https://www.pressherald.com/2020/10/04/maines-marijuana-market-opening-could-be-a-letdown-for-many/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">according to the <em>Portland Press Herald</em></a>.</p> <p>The licensing process got off to a slow start. According to the <em>Press Herald</em>, more than 100 growers still await their state license to grow recreational marijuana. As a result, the evolution of the recreational market will likely get off to a slow start.</p> <p>“Much like everything else in this world, it’s going to look a lot different than we originally anticipated,” Maine Office of Marijuana Policy Director Erik Gundersen told the <em>Press Herald</em>. “There is going to be limited access, fewer stores than we originally envisioned. It has taken longer for applicants to get through the system. There’s the potential for limited product and limited supply.”</p> <p>Gunderson conceded that the opening of the market won&#8217;t be &#8220;the big celebratory day I am sure industry and consumers were hoping for.&#8221; But he said despite a much slower start than envisioned, he fully expects the industry to grow.</p> <p>Legal retail sales begin nearly four years after <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/11/maine-voters-nullify-unconstitutional-federal-prohibition-legalize-marijuana-by-passing-question-1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters approved a ballot measure</a> to legalize recreational marijuana in the state. Under the law initially established by the referendum, adults in Maine could grow up to six mature marijuana plants and possess up to 2½ ounces of marijuana for personal use, but they couldn&#8217;t legally buy or sell cannabis. The referendum left it to the legislature to create a framework for licensing sellers and commercial cultivation.</p> <p>Establishing retail sales was a long and arduous process that <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/veto-override-maine-enacts-bill-to-implement-legal-marijuana-sales-and-cultivation-further-nullify-federal-prohibition-in-effect/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">had to overcome a veto by Gov. Paul LePage</a>.</p> <p>Maine will begin legal retail marijuana sales despite the ongoing federal prohibition of cannabis.</p> <p><b>LEGALITY</b></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains the complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>The legalization of marijuana for medical or recreational use removes a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By legalizing cannabis, these states can essentially sweep away at least some of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Maine joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Washington, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/maine-begins-legal-recreational-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank">Maine Begins Legal Recreational Marijuana Sales Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Drug War State Bills cannabis Maine Marijuana Mike Maharrey San Francisco Cops Illegally Spy on Protests; Activists File Suit https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/san-francisco-cops-illegally-spy-on-protests-activists-file-suit/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:56d04d1c-7f15-0e55-12f3-2ca7f36d9f12 Thu, 08 Oct 2020 22:44:09 +0000 <p>SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. (Oct. 8, 2020) &#8211; On Wednesday, local activists filed suit against the City of San Francisco for illegally spying on them during anti-police protests in late May and early June. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU of Northern California filed the suit on behalf of Hope Williams, Nathan Sheard, and [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/san-francisco-cops-illegally-spy-on-protests-activists-file-suit/" target="_blank">San Francisco Cops Illegally Spy on Protests; Activists File Suit</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p><strong>SAN FRANCISCO</strong>, Calif. (Oct. 8, 2020) &#8211; On Wednesday, local activists filed suit against the City of San Francisco for illegally spying on them during anti-police protests in late May and early June.<span id="more-35511"></span></p> <p>The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU of Northern California filed <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/williams-v-san-francisco-complaint" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the suit</a> on behalf of Hope Williams, Nathan Sheard, and Nestor Reyes who all helped organize and participated in numerous protests in San Francisco in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd. According to the suit, the San Francisco Police Department tapped into a private camera network run by a city business district to conduct live mass surveillance in violation of a city ordinance.</p> <p>The San Francisco Board of Supervisors<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/first-in-the-nation-san-francisco-passes-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> passed the ordinance last year</a>. The law bans the use of facial recognition technology in the city and requires any city department to get the Board of Supervisors&#8217; approval before acquiring or using surveillance technology. According to the suit, the SFPD failed to go through the legally required process before commandeering the camera system to surveil protestors.</p> <blockquote><p>“In a democracy, people should be able to freely protest without fearing that police are spying and lying in wait,” ACLU of Northern California Technology and Civil Liberties Attorney Matt Cagle said in <a href="https://www.eff.org/press/releases/activists-sue-san-francisco-wide-ranging-surveillance-black-led-protests-against" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a press release</a>. “Illegal, dragnet surveillance of protests is completely at odds with the First Amendment and should never be allowed. That the SFPD flouted the law to spy on activists protesting the abuse and killing of Black people by the police is simply indefensible.”</p></blockquote> <p>Williams called secret government spying on protests &#8220;an affront to our movement for equity and justice.&#8221;</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;We have the right to organize, speak out, and march without fear of police surveillance.”</p></blockquote> <p>EFF obtained records revealing that the San Francisco Police Department received a real-time remote link allowing them to access more than 400 surveillance cameras. The Union Square Business Improvement District (USBID), a non-city entity,  operates the network. According to EFF,  &#8220;These networked cameras are high definition, allow remote zoom and focus capabilities, and are linked to a software system that can automatically analyze content, including distinguishing between when a car or a person passes within the frame.&#8221;</p> <p>The SFPD&#8217;s use of surveillance technology in defiance of the law teaches an important strategic lesson. Activists can&#8217;t rest on a single victory. Passing laws requiring transparency and limiting the actions of government agencies is only the first step. Enforcing those laws requires continued vigilance. Fortunately, the coalition that pushed San Francisco to adopt its &#8220;Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance&#8221; has continued to stay engaged and continued to push for further limits on surveillance. The fact that local activists in the Bay Area continue to work and didn&#8217;t let down their guard with one victory prevented the SFPD from getting away with simply ignoring the law.</p> <p><strong>Impact on Federal Programs</strong></p> <p>Limiting surveillance at the local level also pushes back against the ever-growing national surveillance state.</p> <p>Information collected by local law enforcement undoubtedly ends up in federal databases. The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE.</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p>The federal government encourages and funds surveillance technology including ALPRs, drones and stingrays at the state and local levels across the U.S. In return, it undoubtedly gains access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By requiring approval and placing the acquisition of spy gear in the public spotlight, local governments can take the first step toward limiting the surveillance state at both the local and national level.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/san-francisco-cops-illegally-spy-on-protests-activists-file-suit/" target="_blank">San Francisco Cops Illegally Spy on Protests; Activists File Suit</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Surveillance Police-State Privacy San Francisco surveillance Mike Maharrey Whatever Happened to Constitutional Fidelity? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/whatever-happened-to-constitutional-fidelity/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ec7bfc66-fe91-3b16-2f6d-c8d074517f7c Thu, 08 Oct 2020 22:40:30 +0000 <p>Can you imagine a modern president vetoing a bill that created a policy he supported simply because it was unconstitutional? It&#8217;s hard to imagine Barack Obama, Donald Trump, George Bush (either one), Bill Clinton, or any president past or present slapping down that veto. But that&#8217;s exactly what James Madison did. Quite frankly, there is [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/whatever-happened-to-constitutional-fidelity/" target="_blank">Whatever Happened to Constitutional Fidelity?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>Can you imagine a modern president vetoing a bill that created a policy he supported simply because it was unconstitutional?</p> <p>It&#8217;s hard to imagine Barack Obama, Donald Trump, George Bush (either one), Bill Clinton, or any president past or present slapping down that veto. But that&#8217;s exactly what James Madison did.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Quite frankly, there is almost no fidelity to the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> today. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://t.co/4TLoEKlfnN">pic.twitter.com/4TLoEKlfnN</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1313960195177897984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 7, 2020</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p class="entry-title dce-post-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/04/08/is-federal-infrastructure-spending-unconstitutional/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Is Federal Infrastructure Spending Unconstitutional?</a></p> <p class="entry-title dce-post-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/03/03/today-in-history-james-madison-vetoes-bonus-bill-as-unconstitutional/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">James Madison Vetoes “Bonus Bill” as Unconstitutional</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/03/james-madison-federal-infrastructure-spending-is-unconstitutional/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">James Madison: Federal “Infrastructure” Spending is Unconstitutional</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/whatever-happened-to-constitutional-fidelity/" target="_blank">Whatever Happened to Constitutional Fidelity?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video James Madison Maharrey Minute Originalism Constitution highway funding Infrastructure Veto Mike Maharrey To the Governor: Virginia Bill Would Bar Police Searches Based on the Odor of Marijuana https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/to-the-governor-virginia-bill-would-bar-police-searches-based-on-the-odor-of-marijuana/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:0eab1ff0-4d42-acad-8d6d-7424a8fec839 Thu, 08 Oct 2020 11:56:07 +0000 <p>RICHMOND, Va. (Oct. 8, 2020) &#8211; Last Friday, The Virginia House and Senate gave final approval to legislation to bar police from using the odor of marijuana as a reason to initiate a search. Enactment of this bill would protect the right to privacy and further undermine federal marijuana prohibition. Sen. L. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/to-the-governor-virginia-bill-would-bar-police-searches-based-on-the-odor-of-marijuana/" target="_blank">To the Governor: Virginia Bill Would Bar Police Searches Based on the Odor of Marijuana</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p><strong>RICHMOND</strong>, Va. (Oct. 8, 2020) &#8211; Last Friday, The Virginia House and Senate gave final approval to legislation to bar police from using the odor of marijuana as a reason to initiate a search. Enactment of this bill would protect the right to privacy and further undermine federal marijuana prohibition.<span id="more-35500"></span></p> <p class="subttl">Sen. L. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) introduced Senate Bill 5029 (<a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?202+sum+SB5029" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB5029</a>) on Aug. 13. Del. Patrick A. Hope (D-Arlington) introduced House Bill 5058 (<a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?202+sum+HB5058" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB5058</a>) five days later. The legislation would prohibit any Virginia state or local police officer from searching a person, place, or thing based solely on the presence of the odor of marijuana. Any evidence discovered during such a search would be inadmissible in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding.</p> <p>The legislation also changes several vehicle offenses from primary to secondary offenses, meaning police would no longer be able to pull drivers over based on those offenses.</p> <p>Both bills were amended with identical language. HB5058 was approved by House 51-45 and the Senate 21-17. SB5029 passed the House 53-41 and the Senate 20-19. Both bills will no go to Gov. Ralph Northam&#8217;s desk for his consideration.</p> <p>Police often use &#8220;the smell of marijuana&#8221; as an excuse to search vehicles, homes and even individuals. Since the presence of an odor is highly subjective, using it as a basis for probable cause effectively gives police a &#8220;search this person free&#8221; card. All they have to do is claim to smell weed. Enactment of SB5029/HB5058 would significantly increase privacy and eliminate the basis for what would otherwise be illegal searches.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL MARIJUANA PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>Despite federal prohibition, Virginia legalized medical marijuana in 2018 and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/03/signed-by-the-governor-two-virginia-bills-expand-states-medical-marijuana-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">expanded the program last year</a>. The state has also <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/now-in-effect-virginia-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">decriminalized cannabis possession</a>. Enactment of SB5029/HB5058 would make it more difficult to prosecute marijuana users. In effect, Virginia has removed several layers of laws criminalizing marijuana despite ongoing federal prohibition. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Virginia joins a growing number of states increasingly ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>Gov. Northam will have seven days from the date SB5029/HB5058 is sent to his office to sign or veto the legislation. If he fails to act, it will become law without his signature.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/to-the-governor-virginia-bill-would-bar-police-searches-based-on-the-odor-of-marijuana/" target="_blank">To the Governor: Virginia Bill Would Bar Police Searches Based on the Odor of Marijuana</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Drug War Police State Bills cannabis HB5058 Marijuana SB5029 Virginia Mike Maharrey The Trump Administration Has Added More Than $7 Trillion to National Debt https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/07/the-trump-administration-has-added-more-than-7-trillion-to-national-debt/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:87d82fbd-78aa-73f3-90e3-9c5ebc274148 Thu, 08 Oct 2020 03:08:51 +0000 The Trump administration has added more than $7 trillion to the national debt &#8211; in less than four years. The national debt surged above $27 trillion on Oct. 1. It barely even got a mention in the mainstream media. The U.S. government has added over $3 trillion to the national debt this year alone and [&#8230;] <p>The Trump administration has added more than $7 trillion to the national debt &#8211; in less than four years.</p> <p>The <a href="https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd_debttothepenny.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">national debt</a> surged above $27 trillion on Oct. 1. It barely even got a mention in the mainstream media.</p> <p>The U.S. government has added over $3 trillion to the national debt this year alone and there is no sign that the borrowing and spending will stop. In fact, Trump, along with congressional leadership on both sides of the aisle, want to spend more. They just can&#8217;t agree on exactly how much to spend or what exactly to spend it on.</p> <p>Most people blame the coronavirus pandemic for the surging debt. But the Trump administration was running up <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/federal-deficit-blows-past-3-trillion/">massive deficits</a> before COVID-19 reared its ugly head. It simply continued and accelerated the spending problem inherited from the Obama administration. The truth is the federal government was spending as if there was a major economic crisis <em>before</em> the current economic crisis.</p> <p>The proof is in the numbers.</p> <p>In fiscal 2019, <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/28/more-excuses-while-feds-run-biggest-deficit-in-seven-years/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the Trump administration ran the fifth-biggest deficit in history</a>. Through the first two months of fiscal 2020, the deficit was already 12 percent over 2019’s huge Obama-like number and was on track to eclipse $1 trillion. Prior to 2020, the U.S. government had only run deficits over $1 trillion four times, all during the Great Recession. We were approaching that number <em>prior to the pandemic</em>, despite what Trump kept calling “<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/01/smoke-and-mirrors-the-greatest-economy-is-built-on-spending-and-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the greatest economy in the history of America</a>.”</p> <p><a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/07/the-trump-administration-has-added-more-than-7-trillion-to-national-debt/annual-deficits/" rel="attachment wp-att-29549"><img loading="lazy" class="aligncenter wp-image-29549 size-full" src="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/annual-deficits.png" alt="" width="336" height="194" srcset="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/annual-deficits.png 336w, https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/annual-deficits-300x173.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 336px) 100vw, 336px" /></a></p> <p>When Trump moved into the White House in January 2017, the debt stood at $19.95 trillion. It <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/15/full-speed-to-a-fiscal-cliff-national-debt-hits-22-trillion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">topped $22 trillion in February 2019</a>. That represented a $2.06 trillion increase in the debt in just over two years. By November 2019, the debt had eclipsed $23 trillion. Trump, in cooperation with Pelosi, has already added well over $3 trillion to that number this year alone putting the total Trump-era debt over $7 trillion with several months to go.</p> <p>The <a href="https://www.usdebtclock.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">debt-to-GDP ratio currently stands at 137.73</a> percent. Despite the lack of concern in the mainstream, debt has consequences. Studies have shown that a debt to GDP ratio over 90 percent <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/federal-debt-cancer-economic-growth/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">retards economic growth</a> by about 30 percent. This throws cold water on the Republican mantra “we can grow ourselves out of the debt.”</p> <p>According to <a href="https://fee.org/articles/new-report-shows-how-congress-has-screwed-over-young-people/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a recent CBO report</a>, on the current trajectory, the size of the national debt will be nearly double the size of the U.S. economy by 2050.</p> <p>Despite the warning signs, nobody seems inclined to address the rising levels of debt. Even as the fiscal 2020 budget deficit surged past $3 trillion, more than double the previous record deficit, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin called for <em>more</em> federal spending, saying  “now is not the time to worry about shrinking the deficit.”</p> <p>Here&#8217;s a question for Mr. Secretary: When exactly is the time to worry about it?</p> <p>The Trump administration certainly wasn&#8217;t worried about it last year, even as the president was bragging about the greatest economy in history. So, if we don&#8217;t worry about the deficit during a crisis and we don&#8217;t worry about the deficit during a boom, when do we worry about it?</p> <p>It’s easy to simply shrug off the debt. People have been warning about it for years. Here&#8217;s the thing: it’s not a problem until it is. Ultimately, <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/debt-is-neither-free-nor-irrelevant/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">debt is neither free nor is it irrelevant</a>.</p> <p>At some point, somebody has to pay for all this. As the saying goes – there’s no such thing as a free lunch.</p> <p>Currently, the average American doesn&#8217;t really feel the impact of federal spending. Taxes remain low (relatively speaking). The Treasury simply borrows the money. But borrowed money has to be paid back. At some point, Congress will almost certainly raise taxes to pay the bill. And even if the government <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/17/the-federal-reserve-the-engine-that-powers-the-most-powerful-government-in-history/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">depends on the Federal Reserve to print money</a> to pay the debt &#8211; we still pay through the virtually invisible inflation tax. In simple terms, the central bank devalues your money to pay the government&#8217;s bills.</p> <p>Either way &#8211; we pay.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Economy budget deficit Donald Trump Government Spending national debt Mike Maharrey Dallas Police “Starlight” Program Is Really A Fusion Center Public Surveillance Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/dallas-police-starlight-program-is-really-a-fusion-center-public-surveillance-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:0abc8bbf-3bd4-d7a4-3b13-cca7be1567ee Wed, 07 Oct 2020 21:10:01 +0000 <p>The Dallas Police Department&#8217;s &#8220;Starlight&#8221; program is really a fusion center-run public surveillance program. A recent WFAA-TV article explains that phase two of the Dallas police department&#8217;s Starlight program is expanding to seven more retail businesses. &#8220;The initiative is part of a public-private partnership involving DPD, Safer Dallas Better Dallas, Motorola Solutions and some local businesses. With the Starlight [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/dallas-police-starlight-program-is-really-a-fusion-center-public-surveillance-program/" target="_blank">Dallas Police "Starlight" Program Is Really A Fusion Center Public Surveillance Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>The Dallas Police Department&#8217;s <a href="http://saferdallas.com/news/project-starlight/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">&#8220;Starlight&#8221;</a> program is really a fusion center-run public surveillance program.<span id="more-35499"></span></p> <p>A recent <i>WFAA-TV</i> <a href="https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/dallas-police-department-expands-surveillance-camera-program-in-crime-hot-spots/287-d1c0edb7-bace-4e27-9037-6790b1d32c87" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">article</a> explains that phase two of the Dallas police department&#8217;s Starlight program is expanding to seven more retail businesses.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;The initiative is part of a public-private partnership involving DPD, Safer Dallas Better Dallas, Motorola Solutions and some local businesses. With the Starlight Program, business owners add flashing blue light, signage and install surveillance cameras that allow DPD 24/7 and real-time access to the video.&#8221; </i></p></blockquote> <p>Law enforcement is using retail business surveillance cameras to look for &#8220;signs of criminal or illegal conduct.&#8221;</p> <p>Looking for signs of criminal conduct could be something as simple as someone avoiding looking at retail surveillance cameras or obscuring one&#8217;s face to hide their identity.</p> <blockquote><p><i>“The Real-Time Crime center can assess the scene and provide responding officers with up to the second information about what is going on, who the offenders are, who the complainant is,” said Major James Lewis. </i></p></blockquote> <p>Without much explanation, police admit that they are using real-time surveillance cameras to assess the scene or look for suspicious activity.</p> <p>A &#8216;Safer Dallas&#8217; <a href="http://saferdallas.com/news/project-starlight/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">news release</a> sheds some light on what Fusion Centers may be assessing.</p> <blockquote><p><i>“The software embedded in the system has the ability to recognize anomalies that might indicate a crime in progress, such as a camera being covered or tampered with, sudden movements by individuals in view of the camera,” police said.</i></p></blockquote> <p>So, if a person was to look up and notice that a Homeland Security-run surveillance camera was monitoring their every movement and attempted to avoid being surveilled, would that person be flagged by their software?</p> <p>Page 12 of the Dallas Police Department&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dallaspolice.net/Shared%20Documents/violent-crime-reduction-plan.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">&#8220;2020 Violent Crime and Reduction Plan&#8221;</a> reveals that the Starlight program is really a planned expansion of real-time public surveillance.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;The Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) provides real-time crime analysis using technology-based tools such as video surveillance cameras, Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR), and the Starlight program, to gather valuable intelligence and relay it directly to responding officers. The analytics for the RTCC are currently in use by DPD for the Starlight program and the functionality will be enhanced through the hiring of 22 new civilian crime analysts by spring 2020.&#8221;</i></p></blockquote> <p>A 2019 <a href="https://newsroom.motorolasolutions.com/news/the-dallas-police-department-safer-dallas-and-motorola-solutions-launch-pilot-program-to-increase-community-and-officer-safety.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">news release</a> also revealed that Dallas retail businesses are using Motorola Solutions &#8220;Aviglon&#8221; video cameras to identify people.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;The Dallas Police Department, Safer Dallas and Motorola Solutions today announced the launch of a six-month pilot program, the Starlight Program, that will facilitate collaboration between the police department and local businesses. Participating businesses will be outfitted with Avigilon cameras, blue lights and program signage and will be actively monitored by, and connected directly to, the Dallas Police Department’s Real-Time Crime Center using Motorola Solutions&#8217; CommandCentral Aware software.&#8221;</i></p></blockquote> <p>Motorola&#8217;s self-learning Aviglon AI cameras will allow Fusion Centers to identify people or vehicles by their appearance. Aviglon surveillance cameras use their patented, <a href="https://www.avigilon.com/products/ai-video-analytics/appearance-search" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">&#8220;Avigilon Appearance Search&#8221;</a> to identify people&#8217;s faces, clothing, and vehicles and their <a href="https://www.avigilon.com/products/ai-video-analytics/lpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">license plates</a>.</p> <p>Aviglon surveillance cameras will allow Fusion Centers to <a href="https://www.avigilon.com/products/ai-video-analytics/unusual-activity-detection" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">focus their attention</a> on a person[s] or vehicle[s] throughout a recorded timeline.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;Where Unusual Activity Detection (UAD) is object-aware and detects the atypical behavior of learned objects like people and vehicles, Unusual Motion Detection (UMD) technology continuously learns what a typical scene looks like, then detects and flags unusual motions that deviate from that model.&#8221;</i></p></blockquote> <p>Basically, the Dallas Police Department&#8217;s Starlight program allows Fusion Centers to set secret UAD/UMD parameters that only they know.</p> <p>The grant money that paid to put Aviglon surveillance cameras in retail businesses came from Motorola&#8217;s $415 million <a href="https://www.motorolasolutions.com/content/dam/msi/Solutions/gov-grants/state_homeland_security_grant_exec_summary.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">&#8220;State Homeland Security Program,&#8221;</a> which aids Fusion Center surveillance.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;Activities eligible under the LETPA set-aside include those outlined in the National Prevention Framework, one of which is real-time crime analysis centers. Investments in real-time crime information and analysis centers must be coordinated with the state or major urban area fusion center.&#8221;</i></p></blockquote> <p>t appears that the Dallas Police Department&#8217;s Starlight program is part of FEMA&#8217;s <a href="https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/National_Prevention_Framework2nd-june2016.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">&#8220;National Prevention Framework&#8221;</a> that wants to turn retail businesses into members of DHS&#8217;s real-time public surveillance network. Or to put it another way, it appears that the Starlight program is just another<a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2018/03/police-are-creating-national.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> police cam-share program</a> but on a far more intrusive scale.</p> <p>COVID-19 has not paused Big Brother&#8217;s surveillance of innocent Americans. Instead, it appears to have accelerated it.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/dallas-police-starlight-program-is-really-a-fusion-center-public-surveillance-program/" target="_blank">Dallas Police "Starlight" Program Is Really A Fusion Center Public Surveillance Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Surveillance Dallas fusion centers Privacy surveillance jprivate Somebody Is Going to Have to Pay for All This https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/somebody-is-going-to-have-to-pay-for-all-this/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:a6296900-f9e6-51f8-b514-ef4714c8ad4f Wed, 07 Oct 2020 20:55:22 +0000 <p>On Oct. 1, the national debt surged past $27 trillion. The scary thing is nobody seems to care. In fact, they want to spend more. But at some point, somebody has to pay for all of this. That means you and I. On Oct 1, the #NationalDebt hit $27 Trillion. Trump blasted $7 trillion in [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/somebody-is-going-to-have-to-pay-for-all-this/" target="_blank">Somebody Is Going to Have to Pay for All This</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>On Oct. 1, the national debt surged past $27 trillion.</p> <p>The scary thing is nobody seems to care. In fact, they want to spend more. But at some point, somebody has to pay for all of this. That means you and I.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">On Oct 1, the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NationalDebt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NationalDebt</a> hit $27 Trillion. Trump blasted $7 trillion in 4 years, compared to $9 trillion in 8 years under Obama. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://t.co/O2ZPUoSKXR">pic.twitter.com/O2ZPUoSKXR</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1313531971352449024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2020</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/donald-trump-has-a-spending-problem/">Donald Trump Has a Spending Problem</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/bipartisan-fiscal-suicide-donald-and-nancy-team-up-for-more-spending-insanity/">Bipartisan Fiscal Suicide: Donald and Nancy Team Up for More Spending Insanity</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/18/the-federal-reserve-the-engine-that-drives-the-powerful-government-in-history/">The Federal Reserve: The Engine that Drives the Powerful Government in History</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/14/smashing-records-june-monthly-budget-deficit-bigger-than-all-years-except-five/">Smashing Records: June Monthly Budget Deficit Bigger Than All Years Except Five</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/fed-bond-buying-backstops-government-borrowing-and-spending/">Fed Bond-Buying Backstops Government Borrowing and Spending</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/big-spenders-to-the-right-and-the-left-mind-numbing-deficit-numbers-keep-growing/">Big Spenders to the Right and the Left: Mind-Numbing Deficit Numbers Keep Growing</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/somebody-is-going-to-have-to-pay-for-all-this/" target="_blank">Somebody Is Going to Have to Pay for All This</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Economics Maharrey Minute budget deficit Donald Trump government spending National Debt Mike Maharrey Bad Strategy: More Losses for the 2nd Amendment https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/bad-strategy-more-losses-for-the-2nd-amendment/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:34ad9fc2-ff81-1255-7096-2ab080e656d6 Wed, 07 Oct 2020 17:48:07 +0000 <p>In order to advance liberty in the face of the largest government in the history of the world, good strategy is essential. It’s do-or-die in many situations. But yet, supporters of the 2nd Amendment keep pushing tactics that are making things worse. In this episode, 2 examples &#8211; one from the courts, and one from [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/bad-strategy-more-losses-for-the-2nd-amendment/" target="_blank">Bad Strategy: More Losses for the 2nd Amendment</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>In order to advance liberty in the face of the largest government in the history of the world, good strategy is essential. It’s do-or-die in many situations. But yet, supporters of the 2nd Amendment keep pushing tactics that are making things worse. In this episode, 2 examples &#8211; one from the courts, and one from the states.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: October 7, 2020<span id="more-35504"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/0YWf41kEMi8?start=61" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">State of the Nullification Movement Report</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/virginia-2nd-amendment-sanctuaries-rhetoric-vs-reality/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Virginia 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries: Rhetoric vs Reality</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.pilotonline.com/government/virginia/vp-nw-new-gun-laws-july-1-20200627-7y467f6qjzdodewpdznujpev6m-story.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">These 10 new Virginia gun laws go into effect next week</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/10/06/some-virginia-communities-that-took-pro-gun-rights-stances-are-already-using-the-states-new-red-flag-law/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Pro-gun localities accounted for nearly half of Virginia’s red flag orders in law’s first months</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/the-best-2nd-amendment-resolution-by-far-so-far/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Best “2nd Amendment” Resolution By Far&#8230;So Far?</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/4-essential-steps-to-protect-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">4 Essential Steps to Protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/04/federal-courts-fail-again-in-washington-gun-case/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Federal Courts Fail Again in Washington Gun Case</a></p> <p>3 quotes from Thomas Jefferson:</p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-1702" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">To Thomas Ritchie (25 Dec 1820)</a></p> <p><a href="https://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-04-02-02-3373" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">To William Johnson (4 Mar 1823)</a></p> <p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffsumm.asp" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774)</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-100720:3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=335875307504083" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/lb5dpmW17BL7/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/763334369" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/51c2bade-1281-4734-8565-7eb068c3ab0c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1OwGWLVyOrDJQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/7df8ccd3-f401-4bed-8dff-a3116c484900" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+7p3BEM5Gg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> LBRY: <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter">https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/bad-strategy-more-losses-for-the-2nd-amendment/" target="_blank">Bad Strategy: More Losses for the 2nd Amendment</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Local Path to Liberty Resolutions Right to Keep and Bear Arms Strategy 2nd Amendment 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries I1639 Incorporation Doctrine Virginia Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 33:32 In order to advance liberty in the face of the largest government in the history of the world, good strategy is essential. It’s do-or-die in many situations. But yet, supporters of the 2nd Amendment keep pushing tactics that are making things worse. In order to advance liberty in the face of the largest government in the history of the world, good strategy is essential. It’s do-or-die in many situations. But yet, supporters of the 2nd Amendment keep pushing tactics that are making things worse. In this episode, 2 examples – one from the courts, and one from […] Voters in Five States to Consider Marijuana Legalization Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/voters-in-five-states-to-consider-marijuana-legalization-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:79a90e42-50b8-1ead-0861-da810e31d4c5 Wed, 07 Oct 2020 10:13:38 +0000 <p>Voters in five states will consider ballot measures to legalize marijuana in November despite federal prohibition. Voters in Arizona, Montana, New Jersey and South Dakota will consider ballot measures to legalize marijuana for adult use. Mississippians and South Dakotans will have the opportunity to legalize medicinal cannabis. Arizona Arizona voters legalized medical marijuana in 2010, [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/voters-in-five-states-to-consider-marijuana-legalization-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank">Voters in Five States to Consider Marijuana Legalization Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>Voters in five states will consider ballot measures to legalize marijuana in November despite federal prohibition.<span id="more-35398"></span></p> <p>Voters in Arizona, Montana, New Jersey and South Dakota will consider ballot measures to legalize marijuana for adult use. Mississippians and South Dakotans will have the opportunity to legalize medicinal cannabis.</p> <p><strong>Arizona</strong></p> <p>Arizona voters legalized medical marijuana in 2010, passing Proposition 203 by a razor-thin margin. In 2016, a ballot measure to legalize marijuana for recreational use narrowly failed by a 51.3-48.7 margin.</p> <p>Voters will get a second chance to legalize cannabis for adult use in November.<a href="https://azsos.gov/about-office/media-center/press-releases/1217" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> Prop. 207</a> would allow limited marijuana possession, use, and cultivation by adults 21 or older. It would also set up a tax and regulatory structure for the cultivation and sale of cannabis. The ballot measure includes a provision to allow the expungement of marijuana offenses.</p> <p><strong>New Jersey</strong></p> <p>New Jersey legalized medical marijuana in 2010. The program languished under Gov. Chris Christie, a staunch opponent of cannabis. When Gov. Phil Murphy took office, he loosened requirements and expanded the number of qualifying medical conditions. The New Jersey legislature <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/signed-as-law-new-jersey-expands-medical-marijuana-program-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">expanded the program further in 2019</a>.</p> <p>In November, voters will consider <a href="https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/SCR/183_I1.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Public Question No. 1</a>. It was passed and place on the ballot by the New Jersey legislature. The ballot measure would legalize the possession, use and cultivation of marijuana by persons 21 and older, along with the manufacture and retail sales of cannabis products. The Cannabis Regulatory Commission that currently oversees the state&#8217;s medical-marijuana program would manage the regulatory scheme.</p> <p><strong>South Dakota</strong></p> <p>South Dakota voters could legalize both medical and recreational marijuana in November.</p> <p><a href="https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/assets/MedMarijPetitionApproved.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Measure 26</a> would establish a medical marijuana program for patients with qualifying conditions. Patients could possess up to three ounces of marijuana and could grow up to three plants. The measure would also establish a licensing program for commercial production of medical marijuana and sales through licensed dispensaries.</p> <p><a href="https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/assets/2020_CA_LegalizeMarijuana_Petition.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Amendment A</a> would amend the state constitution to &#8220;legalize regulate and tax marijuana; and to require the legislature to pass laws regarding hemp as well as laws ensuring access to marijuana for medical use.&#8221;</p> <p><strong>Mississippi</strong></p> <p>Mississippi voters will consider two competing ballot measures to legalize medical marijuana.</p> <p><a href="https://www.sos.ms.gov/elections/initiatives/InitiativeInfo.aspx?IId=65#:~:text=Initiative%20Measure%20No.,only%20by%20licensed%20treatment%20centers." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Initiative 65</a> was put on the ballot through a citizen initiative by Mississippians for Compassionate Care. Activists turned in <a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/medical-marijuana-measure-officially-qualifies-for-mississippi-2020-ballot/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">more than 214,000 signatures to put the proposal on the ballot</a>. The measure would allow patients suffering from 22 qualifying conditions to access medical marijuana with the recommendation of a physician. Patients would be allowed to possess up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis per 14-day period.</p> <p>With the passage of <a href="https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HC39/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HC39</a>, the Mississippi legislature put the competing medical marijuana legalization measure (Initiative 65A) on the ballot. It has far less detail and has more restrictions than the citizen initiative.</p> <p>The legislature’s passage of a competing ballot initiative is widely seen as an attempt to prevent the legalization of medical marijuana in Mississippi. <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2020/03/12/mississippi-lawmakers-put-competing-medical-marijuana-measure-on-ballot-frustrating-advocates/#468df36720c5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-et-has-event-already="true">According to <em>Forbes</em></a>, Gov. Phil Bryant (R) voiced opposition and suggested that the legislature propose an alternative. <a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/mississippi-lawmakers-attempt-to-kill-medical-marijuana-ballot-initiative-with-new-strategy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According to Marijuana Moment</a>, the competing measure could split votes and prevent either measure from passing.</p> <p>“Mississippi’s ballot initiative process allows the legislature to put an alternative resolution on the ballot if they don’t like what’s being offered,” Medical Marijuana 2020 Campaign communications director Jaime Grantham told Marijuana Moment. “The only reason to do that is that it’s very convoluted and it confuses the process for voters and it ultimately kills it. That’s really where we’re at right now.”</p> <p>Grantham also pointed out that the legislature could have legalized medical marijuana at any time and failed to do so. She told Marijuana Moment that legislators are suddenly tackling the issue now because their hands have been forced by the qualified ballot measure and called it disingenuous.</p> <p>“The reason that some people in the legislature are doing this is to kill the initiative before it even has a chance,” she said. “They’re unwilling to let Mississippi voters have a fair up-or-down vote on the initiative. It’s wrong.”</p> <p>Nevertheless, the fact that the voters will have an opportunity to vote on medical marijuana in Mississipi is a step forward and gives the people an opportunity to be heard on the issue. It’s also important to note that all of this political maneuvering is happening in Mississippi despite federal prohibition.</p> <p><strong>Montana</strong></p> <p>Montana legalized medical marijuana in 2004 through a ballot initiative. In November, Montana voters will consider <a href="https://sosmt.gov/wp-content/uploads/I-190.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ballot issue I-190</a>. The measure would legalize the possession and use of limited amounts of marijuana by people 21 and older. It would also establish a licensing, taxation and regulatory scheme for cannabis sales and cultivation. I-190 includes a process for resentencing and records expungement for past marijuana offenses.</p> <p>A separate initiative, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Montana_CI-118,_Allow_for_a_Legal_Age_for_Marijuana_Amendment_(2020)" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">CI-118</a>, would amend the state constitution to allow the legislature or a citizen initiative to establish the legal age of purchasing, consuming, or possessing marijuana.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Voters in these states will consider legalizing cannabis despite federal prohibition.</p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains the complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>The legalization of marijuana for medical or recreational use removes a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By legalizing cannabis, these states can essentially sweep away at least some of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>These five states could join a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Washington, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/voters-in-five-states-to-consider-marijuana-legalization-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank">Voters in Five States to Consider Marijuana Legalization Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Ballot Measures Drug War Arizona cannabis Marijuana Mississippi Montana New Jersey South Dakota Mike Maharrey Trump on Guns: The Perception Isn’t the Same as Reality https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/trump-on-guns-the-perception-isnt-the-same-as-reality/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:29dda651-a8cc-4ad1-b00f-b77264b44d38 Tue, 06 Oct 2020 20:37:39 +0000 <p>The perception is Republicans, including Pres. Donald Trump, will &#8220;protect the Second Amendment.&#8221; But the perception is not the reality. #Trump and the #Republicans have been horrible on the #2ndAmendment. Don&#39;t trust them to protect your right to keep and bear arms. @mmaharrey10th pic.twitter.com/mfg2JHPFs4 &#8212; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) October 5, 2020 Objectively speaking, Trump has been [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/trump-on-guns-the-perception-isnt-the-same-as-reality/" target="_blank">Trump on Guns: The Perception Isn't the Same as Reality</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>The perception is Republicans, including Pres. Donald Trump, will &#8220;protect the Second Amendment.&#8221;</p> <p>But the perception is not the reality.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trump?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Trump</a> and the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Republicans?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Republicans</a> have been horrible on the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/2ndAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#2ndAmendment</a>. Don&#39;t trust them to protect your right to keep and bear arms. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://t.co/mfg2JHPFs4">pic.twitter.com/mfg2JHPFs4</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1313261625529442304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 5, 2020</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p>Objectively speaking, Trump has been worse on guns than Obama.</p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p class="entry-title dce-post-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/24/report-trump-ramps-up-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control-for-third-straight-year/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Report: Trump Ramps Up Enforcement of Federal Gun Control for Third Straight Year</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/the-federal-gun-laws-trump-is-proud-to-enforce/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Federal Gun Laws Trump Is Proud to Enforce</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/worst-in-history-smashing-federal-gun-control-records/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Worst in History: Smashing Federal Gun Control Records</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/there-is-no-but-in-shall-not-be-infringed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">There Is No &#8220;But&#8221; In Shall Not Be Infringed</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/trump-on-guns-the-perception-isnt-the-same-as-reality/" target="_blank">Trump on Guns: The Perception Isn't the Same as Reality</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Audio/Video Maharrey Minute Right to Keep and Bear Arms Donald Trump Gun Control second amendment Mike Maharrey James Wilson’s State House Yard Speech: A Primer https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/06/james-wilsons-state-house-yard-speech-a-primer/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:619c8b6e-54ed-a579-a481-4c79fa8f130a Tue, 06 Oct 2020 11:54:20 +0000 <img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/james-wilson-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" loading="lazy" />On October 6, 1787, eminent Pennsylvanian James Wilson delivered his famous “State House Yard Speech” in support of the Constitution in Philadelphia. On the dawn of the first true test for the Constitution’s palatability, Wilson sought out to explain how the Constitution should be understood in the eyes of those who drafted the document that [&#8230;] <img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/james-wilson-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" loading="lazy" /><p>On October 6, 1787, eminent Pennsylvanian James Wilson delivered his famous “<a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/state-house-speech/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">State House Yard Speech</a>” in support of the Constitution in Philadelphia.</p> <p>On the dawn of the first true test for the Constitution’s palatability, Wilson sought out to explain how the Constitution should be understood in the eyes of those who drafted the document that same summer. In addition, he intended to preemptively answer some of the fiercest critics of the model, and refute some of the most common themes of opposition expected to come up against it.</p> <p>By that time, Wilson was an extremely well-known lawyer in Philadelphia. During the imperial crisis with Britain, he wrote a well-regarded pamphlet that backed the standard patriot notion that Parliament lacked the legal authority to intervene in the internal matters of the colonies. By 1776, he had become an advocate for colonial independence within a delegation in the Continental Congress that was wholly divided on the issue. As part of the Confederation Congress, he worked to solidify an alliance with France, and made a fortune on land speculation.</p> <p>In the runup to Wilson’s speech, those who opposed the Constitution – often deemed Anti-Federalists – made central to their opposition the critique that the document lacked a bill of rights. Such an addendum, they argued, was necessary to impose explicit prohibitions on the powers of the general government.</p> <p>George Mason, brilliant Virginian statesman and writer of the Virginia Constitution of 1776, left Philadelphia “in an exceeding ill humor indeed,” according to his peer James Madison, largely because of his failure to convince fellow delegates that a bill of rights was a non-negotiable requirement.</p> <p>“Brutus,” a persuasive enemy of the Constitution in New York, condemned the framework on the basis that a “grand security to the rights of the people is not to be found” in the document. While in France, disreputable Thomas Jefferson wrote that “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”</p> <p>To these charges, Wilson answered that a bill of rights – in the context of the system proposed – was unnecessary and redundant. It “would have been superfluous and absurd,” Wilson professed, to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the act that has brought the body into existence.” In other words, the proposed Constitution only allowed the general government to exercise the powers enumerated. To restrict it from exercising powers it was never granted in the first place – through a bill of rights – was counterintuitive.</p> <p>To the assertion that the Constitution gave the general government powers which were not explicitly stated, Wilson countered that “everything which is not given is reserved.” The document did not grant powers by “tacit implication,” he insisted, “but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union.”</p> <p>Therefore, all powers granted were explicit in the Constitution’s text, and those that were undocumented remained under the jurisdiction of the localities. This guarantee – though implicit at the time – was eventually made explicit in 1791 by way of the Tenth Amendment.</p> <p>Responding to Brutus’ implication that the Constitution would homogenize the state governments into a national entity, Wilson responded that “the existing union of the States, and even this projected system is nothing more than a formal act of incorporation.” Contrary to this claim, he noted that the entire constitutional system depended on the primacy of the states.</p> <p>For instance, the state governments were necessary to amend the document, select Senators to fill the upper house, and determine the qualifications for voting for members of the House of Representatives. The supposition “that the annihilation of the separate governments will result from their union” was accordingly “absurd,” Wilson insisted.</p> <p>Concluding the speech, Wilson reminded listeners that the Constitution featured an amendment process that would right aspects deemed to be widespread wrongs. “If there are errors, it should be remembered, that the seeds of reformation are sown in the work itself,” he stated. The amendment process, which required three-fourths of the states to ratify, was far less a hurdle to overcome than the alteration mechanism in the Articles of Confederation – which required all 12 states to assent to each change.</p> <p>Ultimately, Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution in mid-December assuming many of the explanations Wilson provided. Even more consequentially, the themes he invoked in the State House Yard Speech were adopted by leading Federalists in the other states, and clearly influenced the ratification proceedings throughout the states.</p> <p>Edmund Randolph claimed that the general government would endeavor to violate the constitution for exercising any power “not expressly delegated therein,” an idea implied by Wilson’s assertion that all powers granted were explicit. Likewise, James Iredell declared in North Carolina that the “powers of the government are particularly enumerated and defined: they can claim no others but such as are so enumerated.” Echoing Wilson’s argument that the states were integral to the federal system, Oliver Wolcott of Connecticut declared that the states “are the pillars which uphold the general system.” These declarations – which unambiguously laid the foundation for ratification in the states – followed a logical pattern that originated with and flowed from Wilson’s oratory.</p> <p>Though <em>The Federalist</em> is often cited – by academics and federal judges – as the definitive commentary on the federal Constitution, the series played only <a href="https://amzn.to/3czdwWl" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a minor role</a> in securing ratification. The State House Yard Speech, on the other hand, framed the way in which friends of the Constitution explained the instrument and answered their many critics. In this way, Wilson’s narrative had a much more tangible effect on ratification.</p> <p>Ironically, all of this came to pass despite the fact that Wilson was one of the most notorious arch-nationalists of his time. During the Philadelphia Convention that drafted the Constitution, he favored a national referendum to elect the president, giving the executive an absolute veto over any law passed by Congress, adding the power to tax exports, permitting everlasting inferior federal courts that could not be dissolved by the legislature, and even bestowing upon Congress the power to enact “mercantile monopolies” and charter corporations.</p> <p>Despite his own ideological proclivities, Wilson articulated the plain truth – that the Constitution was a federal model based on enumerated powers rather than general authority. The framework divided powers not only between federal branches, but also between local and central authorities. Rather than divesting general grants of power, provisions within the apparatus were to be the only ones exercised in the first place. Those that ratified, then, did so on the basis of these assurances rather than accepting the trepidations of the document’s skeptics at face value.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Founding Fathers History James Wilson Constitution Federalism Ratification State House Speech State House Yard Speech Today in History Dave Benner Trump and Biden Squabble While America Burns https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/trump-and-biden-squabble-while-america-burns/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:9afb3c72-d73f-9308-37ec-963691d7f63a Tue, 06 Oct 2020 11:34:36 +0000 <p>President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden spent most of last week’s first Presidential debate trading insults and interrupting each other. The result was a debate with very little discussion of actual issues or policies. In one of the evening’s few substantive exchanges, President Trump rightly criticized Vice President Biden for saying he [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/trump-and-biden-squabble-while-america-burns/" target="_blank">Trump and Biden Squabble While America Burns</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden spent most of last week’s first Presidential debate trading insults and interrupting each other. The result was a debate with very little discussion of actual issues or policies.</p> <p>In one of the evening’s few substantive exchanges, President Trump rightly criticized Vice President Biden for saying he would listen to the “scientists” in determining whether to lock down the country. President Trump also acknowledged that the lockdowns were a harmful over-reaction that needs to end.</p> <p>Unfortunately, President Trump once again pledged that Covid vaccines would soon be available. This raises the specter of a repeat of the swine flu debacle where a vaccine rushed into production for political purposes caused more deaths than the swine flu itself. President Trump also raised concerns about mandatory Covid vaccinations by suggesting the military would be in charge of vaccine distribution.</p> <p>Vice President Biden vehemently denied he was a socialist, while championing increased spending, taxes, regulations, expanded Obamacare, and a modified &#8220;Green New Deal.&#8221; Biden may not consider himself a socialist, but if his economic plans were implemented it would take America further down the road to socialism — and serfdom.</p> <p>President Trump also denounced socialism, while bragging about his own big government policies such as tariffs, massive spending increases, and plans to maintain the “popular” provisions of Obamacare.</p> <p>One topic that did not come up was gun control. This may have been because both candidates support infringements on the Second Amendment. Joe Biden was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee when it passed gun control measures like the assault weapons ban and the “Brady Bill.” President Trump has not only banned bump stocks by executive order, which President Obama refused to do because his Attorney General correctly determined that the President lacks the authority to do so, but has enthusiastically endorsed “red flag” laws. These laws allow law enforcement to, as President Trump put it, “take the guns first worry about due process later.”</p> <p>The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the federal debt will exceed the gross domestic product next year and reach 195 percent of GDP by 2050! This report was issued before this week’s revelation that the federal debt reached record levels of $27 trillion.</p> <p>This is the biggest threat to our national security, but it was unmentioned during the debate. This is not surprising since few in the political or media elite understand the debt crisis well enough to give it the attention it deserves. Although if Biden wins and Democrats seize control of the Senate, Republicans will likely remember they are supposed to be against big spending and debt.</p> <p>One critical area that could have led to an interesting exchange was monetary policy. Biden has called Trump’s tweets attacking the Fed as an assault on Fed’s independence, as if the Fed were ever free from political pressure. President Trump has gone from supporting a fed audit, criticizing low interest rates, and supporting the gold standard, to pushing the Fed to adopt the insane policy of zero interest rates</p> <p>The debate is the latest evidence the two major parties will not on their own restore our lost liberties. Those who want to roll back the welfare-warfare state should avoid focusing on political parties or personalities. Instead we must focus on spreading the ideas of liberty among our fellow citizens and building a liberty movement that puts principles of liberty above partisanship.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/trump-and-biden-squabble-while-america-burns/" target="_blank">Trump and Biden Squabble While America Burns</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Current Events Elections Republocrats Debates Donald Trump Election Joe Biden Ron Paul On the Presidential Succession Act and “Officers” https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/on-the-presidential-succession-act-and-officers/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f145fa5b-b701-cdfe-2b7b-f0edc2e0e513 Mon, 05 Oct 2020 21:34:44 +0000 <p>At Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman: Do Professors Akhil and Vikram Amar Still Think the Presidential Succession Act is Unconstitutional?  From the introduction: In an influential 1995 article, Professors Akhil and Vikram Amar argued that the 1947 Presidential Succession Act was unconstitutional. This law places the Speaker of the House next in line immediately after the Vice President. [&#8230;]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/on-the-presidential-succession-act-and-officers/" target="_blank">On the Presidential Succession Act and "Officers"</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> <p>At Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman: <a href="https://reason.com/2020/10/03/do-professors-akhil-and-vikram-amar-still-think-the-presidential-succession-act-is-unconstitutional/">Do Professors Akhil and Vikram Amar Still Think the Presidential Succession Act is Unconstitutional?</a>  From the introduction:</p> <blockquote><p>In an influential 1995 <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1923311">article</a>, Professors Akhil and Vikram Amar argued that the 1947 Presidential Succession Act was unconstitutional. This law places the Speaker of the House next in line immediately after the Vice President. The Amars contended that this statute was unconstitutional. Their analysis began with the text of the Succession Clause. It provides:</p> <p style="padding-left: 40px;">In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what <em>Officer</em> shall then act as President, and such <em>Officer</em> shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.&#8221;</p> <p>If the Speaker is an &#8220;Officer,&#8221; for purposes of the Succession Clause, then there is no problem. The Constitution expressly empowers Congress to place &#8220;Officers&#8221; in the line of succession. If the Speaker is not an &#8220;Officer&#8221; for purposes of the Succession Clause, then the Presidential Succession Act is unconstitutional.</p></blockquote> <p>The Amars&#8217; conclusion is that the Speaker is not an &#8220;Officer&#8221; because the Speaker is not an &#8220;officer of the United States&#8221; in the meaning of other constitutional clauses.  but in contrast, Professor Blackman continues:</p> <blockquote><p>In <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/2020-election-could-pit-pelosi-against-trump/602308/">November 2019</a>, Seth Barrett Tillman and I explained our disagreement with the Amars in <em>The Atlantic</em>. (We wrote a much more detailed article on this topic that will be published in due course). Tillman has also unearthed an <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3526416">article from 1792</a> that casts doubt on a critical piece of evidence the Amars relied upon.</p> <p>I hope the Amars can answer a simple question. Who is in line for the Presidency after Vice Pence: Speaker Pelosi or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo? In our view, Speaker Pelosi would become President.</p></blockquote> <p>An interesting originalist methodological questions arises from this dispute.  According to the first volume of David Currie&#8217;s <em>The Constitution in Congress</em> (pp. 139-144), this exact issue arose in  connection with the first presidential succession legislation (passed in 1792).  That law placed the president pro tempore of the Senate as next in line behind the Vice President.  As Currie recounts, various congressmen objected that the president pro tempore was not an &#8220;officer&#8221; in the meaning of the succession clause.  But Congress overrode these objections and enacted the law (which President Washington signed).  My originalist methodological question is: how does this history weigh in assessing the original meaning of the succession clause?</p> <p>On one hand, it shows that the Amars&#8217; argument is a plausible account, not a modernist stretch of the language: their argument was actually made in the immediate post-ratification period.  But on the other hand, their argument was rejected in that era (including by Washington, who in addition to being a bit of a constitutional stickler might be thought to have had a personal interest on the other side, as it would have allowed the executive branch to control the succession).</p> <p>My tentative view on the merits is, without necessarily adopting all of the Blackman/Tillman argument, that the Amar argument isn&#8217;t compelled by the text.  The succession clause says &#8220;officer&#8221; but it does not say &#8220;officer of the United States.&#8221;  So even if the Speaker and the president pro tempore of the Senate are not &#8220;officers of the United States,&#8221; they still are plausibly  &#8220;officers&#8221; (and are referred to as such in Article 1, Secs. 2 &amp; 3.).  That Congress in 1792 accepted this view &#8212; in the face of an express constitutional argument to the contrary &#8212; seems further evidence it is the right one.</p> <p><strong>NOTE</strong>: <em>This post was originally published at <a href="http://originalismblog.typepad.com/">The Originalism Blog</a>, “The Blog of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law,” and is reposted here with permission from the author.</em></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/on-the-presidential-succession-act-and-officers/" target="_blank">On the Presidential Succession Act and "Officers"</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/" target="_blank">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>.</p> Current Events Executive Presidential Succession Act Michael D. Ramsey